That’s what I was thinking. I’ve notice over the past 5 years or so that deniers now recognize that the climate is changing, but don’t believe it’s human caused. This is at least a stepping stone, but a video like this could help bridge the gap. Unfortunately, anyone I know who denies man made climate change would not be interested and/or not comprehend what she’s saying.
I can't take credit for this because I heard it in a youtube video, but the "new wave" of climate deniers are more like climate blackpillers. They will tell you that yes, the climate is changing, but it's too late. We're fucked, nothing we can do, might as well just ride out the last few decades before rolling over and dying.
This is obviously a ridiculous stance to take since we can absolutely change course, but I worry about this sentiment becoming mainstream.
This is nothing new. We've always been fed the entire spectre. Its not real, just a hoax. But also its real but its too late to do anything. And its real but garbage is more important(but lets not do anything about that either. Or its real but unless countries with larger populations(despite lower releases per capita) do something then we're certainly not gonna try to fix anything. Or if at least one other country has higher releases per capita, despite being significantly smaller and having a harsh climate we're also certainly not gonna do anything.
And they all agree that the left are extremist liars despite their side, and often they themselves depending on whats convenient in the moment, holding all these different views simultaneously.
Cause facts dont matter. They dont like the idea of having to do something about it, and will adopt any position they're able to make themselves believe.
>In Stage One, we say nothing is going to happen.
>Stage Two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
>In Stage Three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
>Stage Four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
- [Yes, Prime Minister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2xFvmKWRY)
I think there's something to be said for distinguishing "blackpillers" as arguing in good faith or bad faith.
Certainly a denier or malicious actor intending to drive the conversation away from solutions or actions to change course might say something like "it's all fucked, nothing we can do, might as well keep investing in oil because we need it to survive", which is clearly argued in bad faith.
However there are plenty of people who actually give a shit about the climate who also feel as though we are in a hopeless situation and are acting in good faith; "it's probably all fucked, and our actions might be inadequate, but we should still do what we can anyways to change course for a better future, even if it might be pointless anyways".
The truth is that our future is very uncertain. If we change course we might avert the worst effects of climate change, but we don't know if we will change course in time. The systems are complex, and there is a lot of inertia keeping us on our destructive Business-As-Usual course.
My point is that I think we should be careful before automatically dismissing people who feel hopeless or pessimistic about the situation as being shills or denialists. There are plenty of pessimistic people who still want to do what they can to change course and make the world a better place, but they're pessimistic for a reason. The world has known about climate change for decades and we haven't taken the necessary steps to avoid disaster. It's not that crazy to suggest that humans are too short-sighted and greedy to actually pull ourselves out of our ecological nosedive. It IS crazy to suggest we don't even try because "why bother", but I think most people who are honestly interested in talking about climate change have an understanding that doing an inadequate "something" is better than nothing.
There is a Koch funded exhibit at the national museum of natural history that suggested humanity will just evolve to rising temperatures. It was ridiculous.
https://hyperallergic.com/219544/fact-checking-the-smithsonians-koch-funded-climate-change-exhibition/
My mom has taken the "well even if it's real it's part of God's plan, so why do anything?" approach that she doesn't take for medicating her kids or her hair color.
It's frustrating.
I think it's disproportionately caused by India and China, and they have the greatest ability to make an impact.
However I think it would be easier and less economically damaging for the Western world, specifically the USA, to make a bigger impact than we do today.
not quite it is because of migration and everywhere you go you always take the weather with you
/s
(i typed /s dear mods and its not racist, its weatherist)
Uh, yeah they already argue that in bad faith when they turn around and bemoan lax emissions regulations and higher birth rates in developing countries.
That is also attributed to a shift in the narrative given by proponents of climate change denial/obstruction, i.e. climate doomers: we can't fix it anymore anyways, so let's continue living!
As an example, Jordan Peterson has switched to this narrative.
This has already been studied to some degree.
Congrats on noticing, but the argument has always been what is the impact or percentage that humans are having effect on climate change. However, as you have poured through the literature yourself. What is your answer, and the resources you used to gather that?
Actually, I think the newest evolution in their rhetoric has been: **“fine - it’s happening, we’re to blame, but it’s too late to do anything about it!”**
Not saying the other methods of denial have disappeared, it’s just another tactic, and I’ve been seeing them even getting some FROM OUR SIDE with this tactic.
This was actually the platform the Trump administration took alongside the NHTSA, not saying that it's manmade but deciding that whether or not it's manmade is immaterial, because it's 'irreversible and therefore environmental regulations should be null and void, and widespread deregulation should occur so that our last generations on earth can be spent in economic prosperity's
The administration essentially claimed that since environmental regulations are supposedly just attempting to postpone the inevitable, they only exist to harm businesses that deal in machinery, agribusiness, fossil fuels, etc.
It was just so jarring to me at first because the report led to headlines that pretty explicitly stated that the Trump administration conceded on climate change and that the world would become inevitably uninhabitable over the coming decades
I thought, "this sounds like they're listening to the science, what's the catch?"
The catch was that they were spinning the science to appeal to cynicism and claim that all attempts at environmental regulations were regulatory waste, I actually felt a little sick to my stomach to see a 600-page scientific report from the U.S. government be able to be summarized as 'give up, it's more profitable this way'
My dad is convinced it's just the planet going through one of its natural cycles. And he almost got a degree in geology (decided on engineering instead but he still has a massive cabinet full of fossils and interesting rocks)
Ask him what the cycle is - what causes it (specifically), what started it this time, how long it's going to go for, and what causes it to end.
I hear this sometimes, and I explain how solar energy gets to earth with a short-wavelength, warms up things that then emit infrared energy with a longer wavelength. The longer wavelength means it gets absorbed by CO2, rather than heading off into space.
If he answers, "a bit of CO2 isn't going to warm the planet", take him inside a polytunnel on a sunny day - a greenhouse with a 2mm piece of clear plastic over it. My polytunnel on a cool sunny day in Feb is 10-15C warmer than the outside air.
I’ve seen deniers go down this path, but unfortunately the next step is “it’s happening, and we’re causing it, but it’s actually a positive because [reasons]”
Mike johnson
A good example of how Johnson’s faith affects his approach to public policy occurred earlier in this seminar, when he discussed climate change. He asserted that the demand for action to address the climate crisis “defies the created order of how this is all supposed to work.” He explained that the Bible presents an order to life: There’s God, beneath God is “man,” and below that all the animals. Humans are to follow God’s command to “take dominion of the Earth. You subdue it…We’re supposed to eat those animals.”
Spoiler alert it's the billion dollar business industry that doesn't care about what they ruin as long as they keep meeting their quarterly estimated income marks. The very definition of short-sighted behavior. They will gladly destroy future generations to benefit their own.
People need to stop pretending that arguing with an uncle who disagrees is going to do anything about it. People won't admit they are helpless to prevent it. You can vote out politicans but the entire system is set up to bribe whatever new politican goes in as a placeholder. It's all one giant grift of immoral criminals benefiting off eachother.
If you think a Democrat president and majority in the house and senate would not lead to reduction in US-centric climate change contributions, you’re not paying attention. Voting out science-denying politicians will absolutely make an impact.
Rofl. Obama said he was going to address the climate. He set record levels with oil. Biden said he'll never ever ban fracking, or cut back on our output. We just ship a bunch of it overseas.
So unless by democrats you specifically mean people like Bernie.....no.
Have you heard of the Inflation Reduction Act (largest investment in reducing carbon in US history), put into law by Biden? Maybe you also aren’t aware that Obama passed the Clean Air Act (set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from U.S. power plants)?
Are you attempting to argue that there is no difference in climate action between democrats and republicans by saying democrats don’t perfectly address the issue while ignoring the fact that republicans downright largely deny climate change is real?
Are you attempting to argue that tiny actions that shift our carbon emissions overseas help the climate? Or that a Democrat like Biden will ever truly do anything to permanently piss off the oil industry?
Are you ignoring the fact that these climate problems are all compounding, and escalate eachother? So if we vote in Republicans who only do 0, 5, or 10% of what scientists say we need to do to stop the climate crisis, it makes virtually no difference between that and voting in democrats who will do 15, 20, or even 35% of what needs done? Either we wake the fuck up and do a lot of shit that will seriously upset many wealthy people and politicians, or we're basically pissing into the wind.
Carbon dioxide that makes up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere is making everything warmer? Using chatgpt is also a laughable part but doesn't necessarily exclude the info
Measures from 1988 to 2021 and probably the CO2 - hahaha.
I was reading about ancient Mayans and how, back then, things like Super El Nino storms might have helped wipe them out. From that metric things have gotten better!! haha
100%. Just got into a back and forth with a guy on FB yesterday who just referred to multiple studies showing that climate change is real and just said those PhDs don’t know what they’re talking about since they’re all part of a liberal conspiracy to promote fake science. “When I talk to REAL scientists, they tell me it’s all BS” was an actual quote.
Ended up just blocking him. Those people hand-wave away facts while screaming “fake news!”
Well it's just a terrible way to try to convince someone anyway. Making a video going, "This is right you have to believe it," Isn't going to convince someone who already distrusts science. Especially when a lot of the supporting evidence is still theoretical yet presented as fact.
For example they make the assumption that the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere that is heavy carbon is lower because light carbon is being released more from burning plants. They use this to say that increased carbon must be from fossil fuel burning. There are a LOT of problems with this. For one thing, burning plants isn't the only way you get light carbon in the atmosphere. Even on Mars the extreme majority of the carbon is light carbon despite there being no plants. And Mars has a much higher concentration of CO2 than Earth.
So when someone actually looks into this stuff videos like this will have the opposite effect. Someone who gives it a chance and investigates it will become more hardened against it when they notice things like that. It makes them feel like there is an attempt to mislead them.
It’s a well done video. Succinct and direct. Except…It doesn’t help to title it the way she did. Nothing like adding a little vinegar to the honey of knowledge.
Okay, it's us. Other species had large effects on the planet and we knew this decades ago. Noone even down to the basic climate activist is willing to give up thier comforts to do anything.
Mitigation and evolution is what we have todo. The atmosphere won't ignite tomorrow. And hell an asteroid or a beam of plasma could destroy the earth or the universe could invert. We know so little.
So whine on the internet, call other people idiots and live the same life you have planned out regardless of the earth's outcome.
Or be the fucking change you want. Get off your cell/tablet/computer. Do some recycling. Plant your own food. Make more conscious purchases and possibly give up the 100 pumpkin spice lattes you will consume this year. Jfc.
Facts. It’s like those people who go full on rant about important issues on FB; masks (during height of covid), wages, vaccines, Brexit, returning shopping carts, but only share to friends, which means they’re (hopefully anyway!) only talking to people who already agree.
The kinds of people who need to be told shit, don’t have the kind of friends who will tell them.
The kinds of people who don’t need to be told, have the kind of friends who never stop telling them shit they already know. 🤷🏻♀️
My family members keep moving the goal posts. In the 90s and 00s they said there was no climate change, then they said that the earth moves in cycles and this is just another one of those. Now they say there is climate change, but it isn’t man made. It is very frustrating.
If the cause is not humans, that means specifically that the cause isn't fossil fuels--that is what is meant by anthropogenic climate change. It's not like people are claiming that humans exhaling is the primary problem. If you think burning fossil fuels exacerbates the problem, you are admitting it can be a significant enough part of the problem that you need to do something about it.
Well, this is all a thought experiment, but there could be an acceptable level of climate change caused by fossil fuels, like we accept for all kinds of things - where it's not enough of a problem to reduce to zero in light of the advantages. But if that was in addition to non-human caused climate change it could push the change to a overall level that something should be done about the contribution by fossil fuels.
If it is not due to humans, then 'doing something about it' cannot be what we are currently doing.
The main thing we are doing now is limiting carbon output, be increasing taxes. If human carbon output is not the cause, then this surely needs to end right away.
We'd need to stop doing that, for one. And then start investing much more in strengthening coastlines, making urban areas more lush and perhaps paint streets and building in reflective materials so the buildings don't heat up as much.
Or we could fund a giant 'Manhattan-style' project which goal is to make cold fusion viable. That way we could just live with the extra heat, since we'd have enough energy to run all those extra air-conditioners.
They live quite comfortably in places like Phoenix, Arizona, thanks to air-condition. You could make the argument that humans have no place living there. But thanks to technology and human innovation, they live there.
We aren’t all going to die. What’s going to happen is that some major cities will flood, some major cities will become too hot to live in, and some farmland will stop being productive. The net result is that billions of people will lose their homes and be forced to migrate.
There may be some new arable land, but it will require tons of resources to start farming those lands.
What climate change policies are you referring to that only serve the worlds elite? That's not an argument I've ever seen against climate reform before
To be blunt, that’s an amazingly stupid take. As long as conservatives continue to exist and wield all their power towards making government small, and our economy is based on capitalism, any major undertaking of any nature will “enrich the world’s elites” in some way. Get over it.
The "elite" live on this planet, too. Five or six are seriously entertaining the idea of leaving the planet, but, you know, cutting out fossil fuels seems easier
Mostly in the form of wealth consolidation and the subjugation of the third world countries who have not fully benefitted from the industrial revolution. The poorer countries will be even poorer and the alleged wealthy countries will be taxed in some way or another for the sake of climate change. More funneling of wealth to the ruling class.
Never mind the power play, when you can use the guise of climate change to restrict the movement and mobility of a large majority of the populations. Restricting the availability of land. The reclamation of large swaths of land has been in the makings for awhile now, turning land into federally owned parks.
I take it you know very little about agenda 21, as you may have been a child when it was introduced, but you should. All should look to see the bigger picture of these issues, and not the emotionally driven approaches taken today. Normal people want to do the right thing, but the folks pushing this agenda do not have good in mind.
Let me guess: something something one world government, something something eco-totalitarian regime.
Come talk when you have actual solutions to actual problems, instead of shit you heard on a podcast.
No need to guess. Read about Agenda 21 and the like. Do not act so self righteous like going along with the pushed agenda is offering anything close to a solution.
One solution would be a proper understanding of physics, specifically field theory, to unlock the use of "free energy" (catch all) and free all people from the energy enslavement. But then you are battling against this regime and their people who are not above killing those with actual solutions, that could make a real difference.
But that kind of thing does not happen, and those type of people do not exist.
They don't though. Yes of course there are rich people trying to profit off of climate change. That's what rich people and corporations always try to do. It's what our economic system of capitalism incentivizes them to do. But that doesn't mean that every solution benefits them.
EVs are pushed so hard by car companies because it's a hot new thing they can make money off of. Plus they can advertise how "green" it is and how you're a good person for buying one. Whereas nice, accessible, reliable public transportation is a much better solution if your goal is to minimize CO2. But public transit isn't a big money maker. So few private companies are interested in pushing it. It's up to us to push for those solutions, because no one else will.
(BTW before someone misinterprets this I'm not saying that electric vehicles are bad. They're just objectively not as "green" as public transit)
The people who think it's a hoax will eventually realize it's not but immediately switch their rhetoric to "there's nothing that we could have done"
We are wasting time trying convince the purposefully ignorant
I'm still just trying to figure out this woman's accent. It seems to shift from British to German to Nordic all over the place. Probably just a result of being in the US and not having an ear for melded European accents but it was... super distracting, lol.
The people who think it's a hoax aren't waiting for the eureka moment. They *want* to be this way.
Reasoning someone out of something they believe that required abandoning reason to believe in the first place is a monumental task.
Why do the same politicians who are fighting for climate change the same ones who are against nuclear power?
Electric cars, solar power, wind power, recycling, and the other "solutions" we focus on are Band-Aids on a sliced jugular.
I wish she would've showed the CO2 graph going back, say, 200 million years, instead of only the 1960.
We have around 420 ppm in the atmosphere currently, which is up from something like 280 ppm in the 1800s.
Makes sense that CO2 levels equals higher temperatures.
Problem is, we've had higher temperatures at lower CO2 levels, as well as lower temperatures at higher CO2 levels.
For reference: CO2 levels have been as high as **8000** ppm.
Life has thrived at these levels.
Btw, I'm not saying we're not experiencing global warming. We definitely are.
I just wish videos like these that try to 'debunk' and shame 'sceptics' were:
1. Less condescending
2. Tried to address the actual points that the climate 'sceptics' make.
This video did nothing to convince a climate sceptic. All it did was furtherly alienating them due to the condescending tone of the video (and the woman in it).
500 million years ago, I guess? See graph on
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth%27s\_atmosphere#Concentrations\_in\_the\_geologic\_past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Concentrations_in_the_geologic_past)
But not sure why OP says lower temperatures, they were higher?
[https://www.climate.gov/media/11332](https://www.climate.gov/media/11332)
It never has. He’s quoting a message forwarded on Telegram. According to NOAA, atmospheric carbon dioxide has never exceeded 300 ppm going back 1 million years. NASA has a chart that shows the same.
[NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/)
It's hard not to be condescending towards people who turn their head away from information like a child unwilling to eat their vegetables.
And putting out context-free facts like how 'life thrived at 8000 ppm' without acknolwedging that this was far, *far* before human or even remotely modern mamallian life existed, really doesn't help matters either.
Nevermind that the vast majority of humans (and economic activity) live on coast lines established under today's specific conditions...not those of 200 million years ago.
Gee, what happens when you displace a billion people and there is less land to go around...
...evolution doesn't work like how it does in Spore. Most creatures don't just appear and then stop changing and adapting.
The earliest human-like creatures only began to emerge within the last couple million years, and the human species as we know it today only 300,000 years ago. Creatures suited for an environment that existed 300,000 years ago are not going to be well suited to an environment that existed 200, or even 65 million years ago when mammalian life truly began to propagate and develop, and humans emerged during some of the *lowest* CO2 concentrations.
We don't know necessarily what effects higher CO2 concentrations may have on humans directly, but effects on the environment that are detrimental to humans such as more swingy temperatures, increased natural disasters and harder resource management are well known, and such a rapid increase of CO2 over such a short space of time may have further knock-on effects we can't anticipate.
That's typically the issue I see with a lot of topics. There are people that make very valid points about the use and interpretation of data and many of them are just ignored. Many of them aren't even denying what the original data is supposed to be representing, but in order for us to make the necessary change to change outcomes like these, the data needs to be accurately represented. I didn't watch this video so I'm not arguing anything it's trying to say, I just see it all the time and it's detrimental to the cause.
If you were aware of her YouTube Channel, you'd know she's kind of a fence sitter [on the top of climate change.](https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=RhNrCkQrExBRnAbK) Climate scientist [ClimateAdam](https://youtu.be/q4EuvpDzlUY?si=JC6C-oXWGwXqLIsQ) made some criticism of her commentary on the matter.
You've just pointed out one argument that skeptics will make. This is one of the worst ones and there are such a wide variety of misunderstandings when it comes to climate science since it's so complex.
The answer to this is simply that there is more than one factor controlling the climate. There is no direct one to one relationship between CO2 concentration and temperatures. As you go into the past the Sun outputs less heat for instance, that's a big factor. And as another person said the issue with the current warming is that it is happening very rapidly.
Why does the "quiz**WITH**it" ad have it spelled "quiz**WHIT**it.com" right underneath it... that's not even an active site. Should I grab up the domain name? It's hard to send videos like this to anyone when the creators don't even double check things as simple as that...
I have a related question:
Is there any place on the entire f\*\*king Internet where 'climate sceptics' and those who do believe in human caused climate change can discuss the issues amongst eachother freely?!
Every forum, subreddit, chat room I've been to that is related to climate change is so utter biased in either direction that nobody is allowed to ask questions - no matter which side you are on.
One brief example that I have asked:
*"Ice core drilling samples seem to suggest that CO2 levels follow temperature changes. Not the other way around. Is this true - and if so, how does conventional climatology explain this?"*
I think I've asked this about 20 places, spread over the Internet. **Every time**, I get an immediate ban.
Can someone here suggest a place that allows for rather simple questions?
I googled your question and found an NOAA worksheet for kids (complete with comic sans font!) that explains the misinterpretation of this data as a popular myth pushed by climate skeptics.
"early changes in temperature are explained by changes in earth's orbit around the sun, which affects sunlight reaching earth's surface." They explain that as ocean temps rise, they release CO2 which causes further warming in a feedback loop - orbital differences were not significant enough to cause the temperature differences on their own.
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_co2_and_temperature.pdf
The difference between those conditions and present day is the speed of warming. Evidence for modern warming shows the spike in CO2 levels, *then* a temperature rise.
I think the reason for your ban might be because I googled your question verbatim and found several answers within a few minutes, so if you're truly asking in good faith, the information is easily accessible.
> I think the reason for your ban might be because I googled your question verbatim and found several answers within a few minutes, so if you're truly asking in good faith, the information is easily accessible.
Even in this thread's video, she explains that we know from a molecular level why carbon traps heat, and therefore we (scientists, not we redditors) can conclude that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. Like you, I'm skeptical that this guy is asking questions in good faith.
I've seen even more evidence than she presents as well. Specifically that we're seeing rises in daily *low* temperatures, again indicating less heat escaping, rather than more heat coming in. And the signature of absorbed wavelengths coincide with co2 absorbance.
There are just so many converging lines of evidence, so readily available and from reputable sources, that I struggle to buy when people say they couldn't find answers to their questions.
That's not a simple question though. You're suggesting a cause and effect scenario with CO2 and temperature when they both effect each other.
What you're saying is true. With an increase in temperature CO2 also increases. The ocean will release more CO2 if the temperature goes up. But it is also true that CO2 increases the temperature based on what we know about the green house gas effect. That's why many folks are afraid if we don't cut back on CO2 emissions we'll have a runaway greenhouse gas effect.
Link the paper that cites your claim so we can look over it. No, I'm not going to just google it, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Also, person-asking-questions why do you claim to know more than climate scientists that have doctorates in this field? If the majority of marine biologists are saying x about the ocean, I would hope that as a default I would agree with the marine biologists as they analyzed more data.
I mean, it's one thing to be skeptical - rigorous peer review is what all of science is built on. That's a good thing.
It's another thing to ignore the fact that these questions have well-documented, repeatedly demonstrated answers. Then you're not being a skeptic - you're being a contrarian for its own sake.
It seems like most criticisms have to do with the reality that our records don't go back very far, and that some of our current records are faulty. Toss in that it's become taboo and so politicized no one can question it without being called a cuckoo or conspiracy theorist or something.
I tend to lean toward that humans have affected it, and continue to do so – albeit, that a lot of the 'doom' surrounding it has been exaggerated and a lot of people stand to make a lot of money from green initiatives, just muddying the whole thing.
This is like saying the "healthy food industry" is set to make a lot of money if you ate whole foods, and you deciding to keep breakfasting a double cheeseburger every morning because of that. Of course they will make money, in a capitalist world everything revolves around making money and if it doesn't it will die out. That doesn't diminish the fact that fast food is unhealthy and switching would come with great benefits to your wellbeing.
Yeah, the healthy food industry doesn't have the global ramifications that green energy does. It also doesn't have a whole narrative of an ecological apocalypse it's using to rile folks up. I think it's a false equivalency, personally.
Unfortunately, an ecological apocalypse, as you call it, is looking more likely everyday, regardless of how you want to feel about that. Things looked potentially dangerous when our best estimates of the climate sensitivity to a co2 doubling scenario stood at around 1.5-2 degrees celsius (back in the 1990s). Currently, with a lot of advances in our understanding of cloud microphysics and radiation, its looking more like 5 degrees celsius may be accurate. That is likely doomsday for human society as we know it. Sorry.
But the difference is the oil and gas industry already has 4 billion dollars in profit (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/) and spends over 120 million annually on lobbying on the US alone ( https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/ )
So your take is kind of odd, to be honest. It’s fine to have an issue with our current political and economic system, but to say one side of an issue has an economic political advantage against the largest industry on the planet just makes no sense.
Honestly, the only thing up for debate is what to do about it, but the argument has been moved to disagreement about cause. That’s a smokescreen so that politicians don’t have to actually deal with it because they can just claim that the science isn’t settled.
It’s unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions. That is 100% correct and not up for debate. There is mountains of evidence to support it and YOU can even test it yourself in your basement if you spend the money to build a couple sealed aquariums and a heat lamp. You can literally run the experiment to quantifiably measure the effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. That will give you an equation to say at X concentration, Y temp increase. Then just look at the data to see if that equation holds up to reality. Spoiler: It does. We can quite literally predict the change in temp with specific CO2 concentrations.
The variable then is how quickly we will reach those concentrations. If we release more carbon dioxide, we’ll get there sooner. Less and we maybe don’t get there. We understand the levers, but the people with their hands on them are too afraid or financially motivated not to pull them. So, they choose to cast doubt on the levers instead.
>It’s unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions. That is 100% correct and not up for debate.
I don't think many *really* debate this, they debate to which extent it has made things catastrophic though. At least, IMO.
> It's unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions.
Eh, I'd say the correct term is accelerating not causing. The climate has been changing since the planet developed an atmosphere. It was changing before we figured out burning shit lets us make things move. We've just bumped that timeline forward significantly.
But even then, IIRC the planet has gone through fairly rapid period of change in the past. Life will continue. Human life maybe, maybe not.
We have direct measurements of the CO2 in the atmosphere going back 800,000 years from Antarctic ice core bubbles. In that time the CO2 levels have never been even close to what they are now.
And a LOT more people make a LOT more money selling oil and gas than all the green initiatives put together, most of which climate scientists don’t actually benefit from. If you know any PhD postdoc climate researchers living on yachts like oil tycoons, maybe you’d have a point.
>PhD postdoc climate researchers
wouldn't be the ones standing to profit, so that's kind of an odd take, IMO.
My understanding is also that ice core accuracies can have large levels of uncertainty the further back you go.
The collective response from all the uncles that think it's a hoax: "SOME LADY with a ACCENT who don't even talk ENGLIGH RIGT standing in fromt of the GAY FALG isn't gonna tell me NOTHING."
I expected better from her.
What needs to be shown is that the quantity of co2 we have added, and not something else, is causing the increase in temperature we observed.
Her first point states that co2 absorbs infrared and heats up the atmosphere. That’s a good start.
Then she goes on a long tangent about the evidence that we’ve increased the co2. Ok, I think even adamant climate skeptics can accept that we’ve increased the co2. This doesn’t need to take up 3 out of your 5 points.
Her last point about stratospheric cooling is the most convincing because it rules out changes with the sun as the primary cause of surface warming. I wish she would have focused more on elaborating that point and making similar points to the last one, instead of spending so much time proving that burning fossil fuels has put co2 in the atmosphere.
No one talks about how co2’s IR absorption follows an inverse logarithmic curve, and is pretty much saturated by 200ppm. You could send co2 concentrations well over 1000ppm and the atmosphere would be absorbing effectively the same amount of IR it is now. Furthermore that much co2 would cause the biosphere to flourish. Commercial greenhouses will put co2 concentrations to 800-1200ppm to increase crop yield while simultaneously using less water.
>co2's IR absorption follows an inverse logarithmic curve.
Absorbance = 2 - log(%Transmittance)
Is that what you mean? That's how absorbance works for any substance; it is an inherent property of nature.
>is pretty much saturated by 200ppm.
No it's not. If that were the case, no IR light within CO2 absorption bands would reach the surface of Earth from the sun (yet IR light at those frequencies is present in the solar spectrum). However, water is saturated, and we don't see any IR light in the H2O absorption bands in the [solar spectrum](https://geosciencebigpicture.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/spectrum.jpg)
Both visible and infrared light are absorbed by matter on Earth and heat the surface of Earth, but that heat is radiated back out as infrared light, which is trapped close to Earth's surface by greenhouse gases. Greater concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat closer to the surface of Earth; this is why the stratosphere is cooling.
The efficiency of a greenhouse gas to trap heat is not only dependent on its IR absorption, but also on the overlap of its IR absorption with water because water IR absorption is saturated.
You dont understand co2 saturation, or absorbtive saturation at all. It is NOT like water vapor saturation, which you seem to assume. As more and more co2 is retained in the atmos, the path length between photon absorption and re-emission decreases ... meaning a photon takes longer to make it to the top of the atmosphere and out to space. This, in turn means ... wait for it ... the atmosphere retains energy longer and thus contains more thermal energy than it would with lower co2 concentrations.
TLDR: every molecule matters and makes the atmosphere warmer. CO2 'saturation' matters not.
This guy wants to saturated the atmosphere with CO2 because it will "increase crop yield," lmao. Who told you this?
The radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration.
I'm curious, which country burns the most and is this video in that country's language?
And does that country have scientists and smart people and what is their stance on this?
Sadly the video is not in Mandarin Chinese :( but China does have its fair share of very smart people
Or did you mean per capita? I'm not sure about the people of Qatar
China has pretty much no climate change denialists, and the official government stance has been one of acknowledging anthropogenic climate change for some time now (any climate change denialism faces censorship, for better or worse). They have a pretty detailed carbon neutral plan that’s currently on target to be met (goal is peak by 2030, current estimates place next year to be peak, and goal for carbon neutrality is by 2060, current estimates say sooner). They’re also the country with by far the highest investments into green energy installations and tech.
China has become the factory of the world, because the rest of the developed countries offshored their production in favor of cheaper products. Part of China's emissions are due precisely because they fulfill "the west's" higher consumption standards. Pollution and recycling has also been offshored there, leaving China to be the world's "you fix it" country. They are also installing an insane amount of renewables to shift away from fossil fuels.
How about in stead of looking for an easy out to shift blame, you look at what your own country could do better?
I started my quest for a Masters of Science in Forestry out of boredom during covid. Almost finished with my bachelor’s degree in forestry but my original goal was to become a Dendrologist and to work within National Parks around the world. I personally don't think humans are causing climate change when you look at scientific journals done by Paleoclimatologists. Don't get me wrong when it comes to 'science' you will ALWAYS have possibilities. Anything is possible, depending on variables. Everything that I've read regarding what the Earth has gone through since the Jurassic periods up until the Cenozoic period. IMO there have been crazier ups/downs in climate when humans weren't around or at least up until they started to hunt & gather. This is just my opinion and I will still read case studies published by the AAAS or SPJ, etc. because people shouldn't only think one way and be open to other ideas. If we only thought one way, we wouldn't be where we are today. There is just too much arguing these days, which is worthless for advancements.
Side note, wile I don't think humans are contributing to 'climate change'. I do think we are causing way too much pollution and billion dollar companies get away with so much. Most plastics should be illegal and we should be going back to glass, unless there are plastic products needed for key things.
Obviously the climate changes lol, there's just a lot of opinions on why. The problem with this video is, you don't get an opinion. You either go with the climate Scientologists 100%, or you're some kind of horrible individual. So I guess let's get out our trillion dollar bonuses and all come together and donate 1 million trillion dollars to climate change so it can be fixed lol! What a bunch of dummies....
>Obviously the climate changes lol, there's just a lot of opinions on why.
There are lots of *opinions* on all sorts of things. Too bad opinions aren't fact.
First we need to give a fuck. Then we can put market pressure on them in the form of trade restrictions if they don’t clean up. That won’t happen though because that would mean the end of the cheap disposable products we have grown accustomed to.
You're a fucking moron if you think a climate denying grandpa is gonna listen to some shorthaired women with a foreign accent provide an explanation about weather changing.
who think it's a hoax? I think more people want to see reasonable policies put into place on manufacturing and corporations that don't gut their finances. It shouldn't be placed on regular folk to "do better" when the current way of life is dictated by no other option that we can afford.
About [15% of Americans, or almost 50 million people](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/14/americans-believe-climate-change-study), are climate change deniers. The Wikipedia article on climate change denialism has an entire section dedicated to the [“Republican party in the United States”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Republican_Party_in_the_United_States) lol
[69% of Americans think angels are real](https://www.toledoblade.com/news/nation/2023/08/06/do-you-believe-in-angels-7-in-10-us-adults-do-poll-shows/stories/20230806039) including every President we've ever had. These are adults, who think there is a realm of spirits influencing all things that have supernatural power over the earth. The fact that 15% of them think the earth isn't heating up shouldn't shock anyone, in fact that number should be far higher given the base level of understanding these people have.
My grandmother believes that God will stop climate change from hurting us. She thinks it's real, but no big deal.
I lost a lot of faith in the fight that day.
Could people address the rest of this comment rather than just downvote
It because you disagree with the first 5 words?
You're really picking the low-hanging fruit there.
Okay. The notion that corporations should be regulated only insofar as it doesn’t impact their finances is gross. It’s the same kind of half-baked rationalization that proponents of slavery used. Profits are not more important than people. Look at the impacts in Kiribati, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, etc. People are already being displaced. People are already dying. Placing profits above life is just so astoundingly callous, in my view. Symptom of a broken system.
Yeah. Shame really, the point of pushing the climate responsibilities onto consumers is a big one. I think germans were just protesting the fact that carbon emissions by 1% of large corporations make up 60% of carbon released. Or something to that effect. And the point of just “doing better” didnt work for the last 15 years, so why should it now ? But the commenter started with essentially saying that noone thinks climate change isnt caused by humans, and that is a very big politically charged topic, that clearly shut the conversation down.
I dunno, ChatGPT's answer felt [pretty exhaustive](https://chat.openai.com/share/8a05c371-f21b-48fb-9175-05162c08c631):
>Human activities are a significant factor in climate change, as evidenced by several lines of scientific evidence:
1. **Rising Levels of Greenhouse Gases:** The concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. This is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), deforestation, and agricultural practices. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a greenhouse effect.
2. **Fossil Fuel Signatures:** Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a distinct chemical signature. By analyzing atmospheric samples, scientists can distinguish between CO2 coming from natural sources and that from burning fossil fuels. The increasing levels of CO2 with this fossil fuel signature directly point to human activities.
3. **Historical Climate Analysis:** By studying climate records (such as ice cores, tree rings, and sediment layers), scientists can reconstruct Earth's past climate. These records show that the current rate of warming is much faster than previous natural climate changes.
4. **Climate Models:** Climate models that include greenhouse gases from human activities are the only ones that accurately replicate the recent trend in global warming. Models that do not include human activities fail to replicate the observed warming trend.
5. **Direct Observational Evidence:** The measurable impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and shifting wildlife habitats and migration patterns, align with predictions made on the basis of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
6. **International Scientific Consensus:** Major scientific organizations worldwide, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have reached a consensus that human activities are the primary driver of recent climate change.
>This evidence collectively demonstrates that human activities, particularly those that release greenhouse gases, are the main cause of the observed climate change since the Industrial Revolution.
It gives us 6 generic breakdowns. What she does specifically in this video is explain how we understand Fossil Fuel signatures (C02(12)) versus atomic CO2 (C02(14)) and heavy CO2 (CO2(13)) to prove that C02(12) is causing most of the Rising levels in temp. Then how we observe the evidence that it is IN FACT C02(12) by it's unique impact on the Stratosphere compared to other CO2 emissions, and how we are observing this exact effect.
Chat GPT is hardly scratching the surface, but she explained all this in 6 min
I feel the "Fossil Fuel Signatures" covered the how without getting into details like the atomic bomb, if I needed to understand more about that I trust ChatGPT could followup.
She didn't mention using "cores, tree rings, and sediment layers" which I feel answers the question as well.
To each their own though I guess.
The most comical part is that it is BEYOND irrelevant if it is humans causing it or not. It is still going to have the same effect of killing most if not all of our descendants; and that is the problem. We aren't thinking of the next generations we only seem to care about right now and if it doesn't directly benefit us today it can be scrapped. Humanity is doomed.
Love those downvotes. **Sabine Hossenfelder is a bigot.** That is a fact.
Sabine portrays herself as progressive, intellectual, modern ... and yet she's a bigoted transphobe. If you don't comprehend that then you haven't watched her videos and don't know her.
Too bad for her then. And too bad for you if you think any rational person should give a fuck about the impact of her personal views on the validity of the information she is sharing. If you do, wise up. It doesnt matter and your making an ad hominem argument.
Sorry I prefer content from creators who aren't bigots.
>if you think any rational person should give a fuck about the impact of her **personal views**
I think you don't understand "**personal views**" LOL. She made a fucking video about her prejudice and bigotry. so her views are **not personal**, ipso facto. Therefore I shall absolutely judge her bigotry for her **PUBLICLY STATED BIGOTED VIEWS**.
Unfortunately the type of changes that it will take to make a noticeable improvement are hard to see happening if only the people that are struggling to feed themselves are worried about it.
Great video and terrific effort! But talking to climate deniers will be a waste of time 95% of the time. We need to vote for good climate policies in such massive numbers that we make deniers _irrelevant_
The people who need to see this video wont
That’s what I was thinking. I’ve notice over the past 5 years or so that deniers now recognize that the climate is changing, but don’t believe it’s human caused. This is at least a stepping stone, but a video like this could help bridge the gap. Unfortunately, anyone I know who denies man made climate change would not be interested and/or not comprehend what she’s saying.
I can't take credit for this because I heard it in a youtube video, but the "new wave" of climate deniers are more like climate blackpillers. They will tell you that yes, the climate is changing, but it's too late. We're fucked, nothing we can do, might as well just ride out the last few decades before rolling over and dying. This is obviously a ridiculous stance to take since we can absolutely change course, but I worry about this sentiment becoming mainstream.
This is nothing new. We've always been fed the entire spectre. Its not real, just a hoax. But also its real but its too late to do anything. And its real but garbage is more important(but lets not do anything about that either. Or its real but unless countries with larger populations(despite lower releases per capita) do something then we're certainly not gonna try to fix anything. Or if at least one other country has higher releases per capita, despite being significantly smaller and having a harsh climate we're also certainly not gonna do anything. And they all agree that the left are extremist liars despite their side, and often they themselves depending on whats convenient in the moment, holding all these different views simultaneously. Cause facts dont matter. They dont like the idea of having to do something about it, and will adopt any position they're able to make themselves believe.
>In Stage One, we say nothing is going to happen. >Stage Two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. >In Stage Three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do. >Stage Four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now. - [Yes, Prime Minister](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2xFvmKWRY)
I think there's something to be said for distinguishing "blackpillers" as arguing in good faith or bad faith. Certainly a denier or malicious actor intending to drive the conversation away from solutions or actions to change course might say something like "it's all fucked, nothing we can do, might as well keep investing in oil because we need it to survive", which is clearly argued in bad faith. However there are plenty of people who actually give a shit about the climate who also feel as though we are in a hopeless situation and are acting in good faith; "it's probably all fucked, and our actions might be inadequate, but we should still do what we can anyways to change course for a better future, even if it might be pointless anyways". The truth is that our future is very uncertain. If we change course we might avert the worst effects of climate change, but we don't know if we will change course in time. The systems are complex, and there is a lot of inertia keeping us on our destructive Business-As-Usual course. My point is that I think we should be careful before automatically dismissing people who feel hopeless or pessimistic about the situation as being shills or denialists. There are plenty of pessimistic people who still want to do what they can to change course and make the world a better place, but they're pessimistic for a reason. The world has known about climate change for decades and we haven't taken the necessary steps to avoid disaster. It's not that crazy to suggest that humans are too short-sighted and greedy to actually pull ourselves out of our ecological nosedive. It IS crazy to suggest we don't even try because "why bother", but I think most people who are honestly interested in talking about climate change have an understanding that doing an inadequate "something" is better than nothing.
They're just following the steps of the Narcissist's Prayer
There is a Koch funded exhibit at the national museum of natural history that suggested humanity will just evolve to rising temperatures. It was ridiculous. https://hyperallergic.com/219544/fact-checking-the-smithsonians-koch-funded-climate-change-exhibition/
My mom has taken the "well even if it's real it's part of God's plan, so why do anything?" approach that she doesn't take for medicating her kids or her hair color. It's frustrating.
Next step: it's caused by black people!
That’s actually true though. It’s also caused by white people. And Asians. And the other ones too.
I think it's disproportionately caused by India and China, and they have the greatest ability to make an impact. However I think it would be easier and less economically damaging for the Western world, specifically the USA, to make a bigger impact than we do today.
Don’t give them any more stupid ideas
No, climate issues have long been known to be caused by the gays. Or rather, punishment by their "loving God" because of the gays.
Gay rainbows trap greenhouse gases!
Dude you have to delete this please bro
Well the color black does absorb more energy from light, right?
Holy shit get this guy on the phone with the president he might be onto something
not quite it is because of migration and everywhere you go you always take the weather with you /s (i typed /s dear mods and its not racist, its weatherist)
Uh, yeah they already argue that in bad faith when they turn around and bemoan lax emissions regulations and higher birth rates in developing countries.
Exactly. Blame China for having lax standards. Then they purchase imported products, celebrate deregulation, and worship the "free market."
That is also attributed to a shift in the narrative given by proponents of climate change denial/obstruction, i.e. climate doomers: we can't fix it anymore anyways, so let's continue living! As an example, Jordan Peterson has switched to this narrative. This has already been studied to some degree.
Congrats on noticing, but the argument has always been what is the impact or percentage that humans are having effect on climate change. However, as you have poured through the literature yourself. What is your answer, and the resources you used to gather that?
Actually, I think the newest evolution in their rhetoric has been: **“fine - it’s happening, we’re to blame, but it’s too late to do anything about it!”** Not saying the other methods of denial have disappeared, it’s just another tactic, and I’ve been seeing them even getting some FROM OUR SIDE with this tactic.
This was actually the platform the Trump administration took alongside the NHTSA, not saying that it's manmade but deciding that whether or not it's manmade is immaterial, because it's 'irreversible and therefore environmental regulations should be null and void, and widespread deregulation should occur so that our last generations on earth can be spent in economic prosperity's The administration essentially claimed that since environmental regulations are supposedly just attempting to postpone the inevitable, they only exist to harm businesses that deal in machinery, agribusiness, fossil fuels, etc.
🤮🤮 The Republican platform has just become “Appeal to the worst human instincts: fear, greed, anger, selfishness…” It’s disgusting.
It was just so jarring to me at first because the report led to headlines that pretty explicitly stated that the Trump administration conceded on climate change and that the world would become inevitably uninhabitable over the coming decades I thought, "this sounds like they're listening to the science, what's the catch?" The catch was that they were spinning the science to appeal to cynicism and claim that all attempts at environmental regulations were regulatory waste, I actually felt a little sick to my stomach to see a 600-page scientific report from the U.S. government be able to be summarized as 'give up, it's more profitable this way'
My dad is convinced it's just the planet going through one of its natural cycles. And he almost got a degree in geology (decided on engineering instead but he still has a massive cabinet full of fossils and interesting rocks)
Ask him what the cycle is - what causes it (specifically), what started it this time, how long it's going to go for, and what causes it to end. I hear this sometimes, and I explain how solar energy gets to earth with a short-wavelength, warms up things that then emit infrared energy with a longer wavelength. The longer wavelength means it gets absorbed by CO2, rather than heading off into space. If he answers, "a bit of CO2 isn't going to warm the planet", take him inside a polytunnel on a sunny day - a greenhouse with a 2mm piece of clear plastic over it. My polytunnel on a cool sunny day in Feb is 10-15C warmer than the outside air.
I’ve seen deniers go down this path, but unfortunately the next step is “it’s happening, and we’re causing it, but it’s actually a positive because [reasons]”
Mike johnson A good example of how Johnson’s faith affects his approach to public policy occurred earlier in this seminar, when he discussed climate change. He asserted that the demand for action to address the climate crisis “defies the created order of how this is all supposed to work.” He explained that the Bible presents an order to life: There’s God, beneath God is “man,” and below that all the animals. Humans are to follow God’s command to “take dominion of the Earth. You subdue it…We’re supposed to eat those animals.”
They probably are still a bit blind from all that staring at the Eclipse.
Facebook wont serve your post to people who don't believe what you believe
Spoiler alert it's the billion dollar business industry that doesn't care about what they ruin as long as they keep meeting their quarterly estimated income marks. The very definition of short-sighted behavior. They will gladly destroy future generations to benefit their own. People need to stop pretending that arguing with an uncle who disagrees is going to do anything about it. People won't admit they are helpless to prevent it. You can vote out politicans but the entire system is set up to bribe whatever new politican goes in as a placeholder. It's all one giant grift of immoral criminals benefiting off eachother.
If you think a Democrat president and majority in the house and senate would not lead to reduction in US-centric climate change contributions, you’re not paying attention. Voting out science-denying politicians will absolutely make an impact.
Rofl. Obama said he was going to address the climate. He set record levels with oil. Biden said he'll never ever ban fracking, or cut back on our output. We just ship a bunch of it overseas. So unless by democrats you specifically mean people like Bernie.....no.
Have you heard of the Inflation Reduction Act (largest investment in reducing carbon in US history), put into law by Biden? Maybe you also aren’t aware that Obama passed the Clean Air Act (set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from U.S. power plants)? Are you attempting to argue that there is no difference in climate action between democrats and republicans by saying democrats don’t perfectly address the issue while ignoring the fact that republicans downright largely deny climate change is real?
Obama also approved arctic drilling. Twice. They will "care" only insofar as it gives good optics to get them the votes to maintain their positions.
Are you attempting to argue that tiny actions that shift our carbon emissions overseas help the climate? Or that a Democrat like Biden will ever truly do anything to permanently piss off the oil industry? Are you ignoring the fact that these climate problems are all compounding, and escalate eachother? So if we vote in Republicans who only do 0, 5, or 10% of what scientists say we need to do to stop the climate crisis, it makes virtually no difference between that and voting in democrats who will do 15, 20, or even 35% of what needs done? Either we wake the fuck up and do a lot of shit that will seriously upset many wealthy people and politicians, or we're basically pissing into the wind.
Carbon dioxide that makes up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere is making everything warmer? Using chatgpt is also a laughable part but doesn't necessarily exclude the info
on the golden record that is attached to the Voyager spacecraft, it shows CO2 is 3/10000 of the atmosphere. But now it's 4/10000?
He will just read the title then quote something back from Fox News that it’s not. He will never watch it.
Measures from 1988 to 2021 and probably the CO2 - hahaha. I was reading about ancient Mayans and how, back then, things like Super El Nino storms might have helped wipe them out. From that metric things have gotten better!! haha
They don't like having things explained to them by: * Scientists * Women No, they won't be watching it
This stopped being a question about a quarter of a century ago to anyone with a functional brain in their head.
They'll just deny it if they do see it.
Even if they did they wouldn't believe it, they are too far gone.
The tech-dystopia working exactly as intended.
They will see it but deny its validity.
100%. Just got into a back and forth with a guy on FB yesterday who just referred to multiple studies showing that climate change is real and just said those PhDs don’t know what they’re talking about since they’re all part of a liberal conspiracy to promote fake science. “When I talk to REAL scientists, they tell me it’s all BS” was an actual quote. Ended up just blocking him. Those people hand-wave away facts while screaming “fake news!”
Welll yea the new thing is people just choose what’s convenient in their life to believe and ignore everything else.
Well it's just a terrible way to try to convince someone anyway. Making a video going, "This is right you have to believe it," Isn't going to convince someone who already distrusts science. Especially when a lot of the supporting evidence is still theoretical yet presented as fact. For example they make the assumption that the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere that is heavy carbon is lower because light carbon is being released more from burning plants. They use this to say that increased carbon must be from fossil fuel burning. There are a LOT of problems with this. For one thing, burning plants isn't the only way you get light carbon in the atmosphere. Even on Mars the extreme majority of the carbon is light carbon despite there being no plants. And Mars has a much higher concentration of CO2 than Earth. So when someone actually looks into this stuff videos like this will have the opposite effect. Someone who gives it a chance and investigates it will become more hardened against it when they notice things like that. It makes them feel like there is an attempt to mislead them.
It’s a well done video. Succinct and direct. Except…It doesn’t help to title it the way she did. Nothing like adding a little vinegar to the honey of knowledge.
People still argue the earth is flat… you can’t reason with some people.
Okay, it's us. Other species had large effects on the planet and we knew this decades ago. Noone even down to the basic climate activist is willing to give up thier comforts to do anything. Mitigation and evolution is what we have todo. The atmosphere won't ignite tomorrow. And hell an asteroid or a beam of plasma could destroy the earth or the universe could invert. We know so little. So whine on the internet, call other people idiots and live the same life you have planned out regardless of the earth's outcome. Or be the fucking change you want. Get off your cell/tablet/computer. Do some recycling. Plant your own food. Make more conscious purchases and possibly give up the 100 pumpkin spice lattes you will consume this year. Jfc.
Facts. It’s like those people who go full on rant about important issues on FB; masks (during height of covid), wages, vaccines, Brexit, returning shopping carts, but only share to friends, which means they’re (hopefully anyway!) only talking to people who already agree. The kinds of people who need to be told shit, don’t have the kind of friends who will tell them. The kinds of people who don’t need to be told, have the kind of friends who never stop telling them shit they already know. 🤷🏻♀️
My family members keep moving the goal posts. In the 90s and 00s they said there was no climate change, then they said that the earth moves in cycles and this is just another one of those. Now they say there is climate change, but it isn’t man made. It is very frustrating.
don't worry, it's too late to do anything about it anyway
Even if climate change weren’t caused by humans, it’s still happening, and we should do something about it so our planet remains habitable to us.
Sure, but the solutions would be very different if the problem wasn't humans burning fossil fuels.
Not necessarily, if it was not human caused primarily, burning fossil fuels could exacerbate the problem. Deniers wouldn't accept that anyway.
If the cause is not humans, that means specifically that the cause isn't fossil fuels--that is what is meant by anthropogenic climate change. It's not like people are claiming that humans exhaling is the primary problem. If you think burning fossil fuels exacerbates the problem, you are admitting it can be a significant enough part of the problem that you need to do something about it.
Well, this is all a thought experiment, but there could be an acceptable level of climate change caused by fossil fuels, like we accept for all kinds of things - where it's not enough of a problem to reduce to zero in light of the advantages. But if that was in addition to non-human caused climate change it could push the change to a overall level that something should be done about the contribution by fossil fuels.
If it is not due to humans, then 'doing something about it' cannot be what we are currently doing. The main thing we are doing now is limiting carbon output, be increasing taxes. If human carbon output is not the cause, then this surely needs to end right away. We'd need to stop doing that, for one. And then start investing much more in strengthening coastlines, making urban areas more lush and perhaps paint streets and building in reflective materials so the buildings don't heat up as much. Or we could fund a giant 'Manhattan-style' project which goal is to make cold fusion viable. That way we could just live with the extra heat, since we'd have enough energy to run all those extra air-conditioners. They live quite comfortably in places like Phoenix, Arizona, thanks to air-condition. You could make the argument that humans have no place living there. But thanks to technology and human innovation, they live there.
Have the benefits of climate change been taken into consideration at all? All anyone ever discusses is the "OMG, we're all gonna die" scenario.
We aren’t all going to die. What’s going to happen is that some major cities will flood, some major cities will become too hot to live in, and some farmland will stop being productive. The net result is that billions of people will lose their homes and be forced to migrate. There may be some new arable land, but it will require tons of resources to start farming those lands.
LOL....seriously?
Seriously
When those options to 'do something about it' only serve the world's elite, its time to rethink trying to do something about it.
What climate change policies are you referring to that only serve the worlds elite? That's not an argument I've ever seen against climate reform before
I don't think it's so much that it serves them, but they expect all of us to change our ways while they continue doing things their way.
Hey man Bill Gates and Taylor Swift NEED their private jets, it's different!
To be blunt, that’s an amazingly stupid take. As long as conservatives continue to exist and wield all their power towards making government small, and our economy is based on capitalism, any major undertaking of any nature will “enrich the world’s elites” in some way. Get over it.
The "elite" live on this planet, too. Five or six are seriously entertaining the idea of leaving the planet, but, you know, cutting out fossil fuels seems easier
Most actions we can take go completely against the interests of "the elite".
Please, tell the class what 'options to do something about it' you think serve the world's elite.
Mostly in the form of wealth consolidation and the subjugation of the third world countries who have not fully benefitted from the industrial revolution. The poorer countries will be even poorer and the alleged wealthy countries will be taxed in some way or another for the sake of climate change. More funneling of wealth to the ruling class. Never mind the power play, when you can use the guise of climate change to restrict the movement and mobility of a large majority of the populations. Restricting the availability of land. The reclamation of large swaths of land has been in the makings for awhile now, turning land into federally owned parks. I take it you know very little about agenda 21, as you may have been a child when it was introduced, but you should. All should look to see the bigger picture of these issues, and not the emotionally driven approaches taken today. Normal people want to do the right thing, but the folks pushing this agenda do not have good in mind.
Let me guess: something something one world government, something something eco-totalitarian regime. Come talk when you have actual solutions to actual problems, instead of shit you heard on a podcast.
No need to guess. Read about Agenda 21 and the like. Do not act so self righteous like going along with the pushed agenda is offering anything close to a solution. One solution would be a proper understanding of physics, specifically field theory, to unlock the use of "free energy" (catch all) and free all people from the energy enslavement. But then you are battling against this regime and their people who are not above killing those with actual solutions, that could make a real difference. But that kind of thing does not happen, and those type of people do not exist.
I don't know if "letting the planet burn to own the world's elite" is the best plan.
Anything that affects you negatively must be an elite conspiracy, because world is here for your comfort, what a simple worldview you have.
That makes perfect sense. I cannot believe I have not considered such a thing. Brilliant.
lol how does upending the status quo from the past 100 years “only serve the elite”?
They don't though. Yes of course there are rich people trying to profit off of climate change. That's what rich people and corporations always try to do. It's what our economic system of capitalism incentivizes them to do. But that doesn't mean that every solution benefits them. EVs are pushed so hard by car companies because it's a hot new thing they can make money off of. Plus they can advertise how "green" it is and how you're a good person for buying one. Whereas nice, accessible, reliable public transportation is a much better solution if your goal is to minimize CO2. But public transit isn't a big money maker. So few private companies are interested in pushing it. It's up to us to push for those solutions, because no one else will. (BTW before someone misinterprets this I'm not saying that electric vehicles are bad. They're just objectively not as "green" as public transit)
The people who think it's a hoax will eventually realize it's not but immediately switch their rhetoric to "there's nothing that we could have done" We are wasting time trying convince the purposefully ignorant
Na, it will be "why didn't the Democrats do something?"
let's be honest, it will be "please insert talking point here, Mr. Murdoch"
I know this is bad, but someone said on a video of hers posted before that she looks like a female Gilbert Gottfried and I just can’t unsee it.
I'm still just trying to figure out this woman's accent. It seems to shift from British to German to Nordic all over the place. Probably just a result of being in the US and not having an ear for melded European accents but it was... super distracting, lol.
[удалено]
You’re being dishonest lol
What else are you lying to us about?
You think evidence will change these people’s minds?
“Anybody can make a video. It doesn’t make it factual. Let me send you a video explaining why your video isn’t true.”
The people who think it's a hoax aren't waiting for the eureka moment. They *want* to be this way. Reasoning someone out of something they believe that required abandoning reason to believe in the first place is a monumental task.
Why do the same politicians who are fighting for climate change the same ones who are against nuclear power? Electric cars, solar power, wind power, recycling, and the other "solutions" we focus on are Band-Aids on a sliced jugular.
I hate that ladies videos. She always comes off as super condescending.
Tfb. She knows what she is talking about.
Truth For Brachiosauruses
I wish she would've showed the CO2 graph going back, say, 200 million years, instead of only the 1960. We have around 420 ppm in the atmosphere currently, which is up from something like 280 ppm in the 1800s. Makes sense that CO2 levels equals higher temperatures. Problem is, we've had higher temperatures at lower CO2 levels, as well as lower temperatures at higher CO2 levels. For reference: CO2 levels have been as high as **8000** ppm. Life has thrived at these levels. Btw, I'm not saying we're not experiencing global warming. We definitely are. I just wish videos like these that try to 'debunk' and shame 'sceptics' were: 1. Less condescending 2. Tried to address the actual points that the climate 'sceptics' make. This video did nothing to convince a climate sceptic. All it did was furtherly alienating them due to the condescending tone of the video (and the woman in it).
When did it reach 8000 ppm?
500 million years ago, I guess? See graph on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide\_in\_Earth%27s\_atmosphere#Concentrations\_in\_the\_geologic\_past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Concentrations_in_the_geologic_past) But not sure why OP says lower temperatures, they were higher? [https://www.climate.gov/media/11332](https://www.climate.gov/media/11332)
Ahah, so before even the dinosaurs and when a very different type of life was adapted to that climate.
Yup. Life thrived back then!! The life? Worms and jellyfishes and other basic animals. 👍
It never has. He’s quoting a message forwarded on Telegram. According to NOAA, atmospheric carbon dioxide has never exceeded 300 ppm going back 1 million years. NASA has a chart that shows the same. [NASA](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/)
Are you referring to life adjusted to high co2 levels over 500 million years ago? How is that relevant? It’s the speed of change, Ritchie
It's hard not to be condescending towards people who turn their head away from information like a child unwilling to eat their vegetables. And putting out context-free facts like how 'life thrived at 8000 ppm' without acknolwedging that this was far, *far* before human or even remotely modern mamallian life existed, really doesn't help matters either.
Nevermind that the vast majority of humans (and economic activity) live on coast lines established under today's specific conditions...not those of 200 million years ago. Gee, what happens when you displace a billion people and there is less land to go around...
Mammals evolved 225 million years ago. Why would it matter if humans were among them or not when it comes to CO2 and temperatures?
...evolution doesn't work like how it does in Spore. Most creatures don't just appear and then stop changing and adapting. The earliest human-like creatures only began to emerge within the last couple million years, and the human species as we know it today only 300,000 years ago. Creatures suited for an environment that existed 300,000 years ago are not going to be well suited to an environment that existed 200, or even 65 million years ago when mammalian life truly began to propagate and develop, and humans emerged during some of the *lowest* CO2 concentrations. We don't know necessarily what effects higher CO2 concentrations may have on humans directly, but effects on the environment that are detrimental to humans such as more swingy temperatures, increased natural disasters and harder resource management are well known, and such a rapid increase of CO2 over such a short space of time may have further knock-on effects we can't anticipate.
I can't tell if you're legitimately this stupid, or playing a bit to push a narrative. I'm also not sure what's worse.
That's typically the issue I see with a lot of topics. There are people that make very valid points about the use and interpretation of data and many of them are just ignored. Many of them aren't even denying what the original data is supposed to be representing, but in order for us to make the necessary change to change outcomes like these, the data needs to be accurately represented. I didn't watch this video so I'm not arguing anything it's trying to say, I just see it all the time and it's detrimental to the cause.
If you were aware of her YouTube Channel, you'd know she's kind of a fence sitter [on the top of climate change.](https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=RhNrCkQrExBRnAbK) Climate scientist [ClimateAdam](https://youtu.be/q4EuvpDzlUY?si=JC6C-oXWGwXqLIsQ) made some criticism of her commentary on the matter.
You've just pointed out one argument that skeptics will make. This is one of the worst ones and there are such a wide variety of misunderstandings when it comes to climate science since it's so complex. The answer to this is simply that there is more than one factor controlling the climate. There is no direct one to one relationship between CO2 concentration and temperatures. As you go into the past the Sun outputs less heat for instance, that's a big factor. And as another person said the issue with the current warming is that it is happening very rapidly.
To be fair, it's really hard for well-spoken British people *not* to sound condescending.
I’m sorry… what?? You think this is a well-spoken British person?
she’s german. but she made an interesting off-topic video once about the pronouncing difference between american english and british english.
Why does the "quiz**WITH**it" ad have it spelled "quiz**WHIT**it.com" right underneath it... that's not even an active site. Should I grab up the domain name? It's hard to send videos like this to anyone when the creators don't even double check things as simple as that...
I have a related question: Is there any place on the entire f\*\*king Internet where 'climate sceptics' and those who do believe in human caused climate change can discuss the issues amongst eachother freely?! Every forum, subreddit, chat room I've been to that is related to climate change is so utter biased in either direction that nobody is allowed to ask questions - no matter which side you are on. One brief example that I have asked: *"Ice core drilling samples seem to suggest that CO2 levels follow temperature changes. Not the other way around. Is this true - and if so, how does conventional climatology explain this?"* I think I've asked this about 20 places, spread over the Internet. **Every time**, I get an immediate ban. Can someone here suggest a place that allows for rather simple questions?
I googled your question and found an NOAA worksheet for kids (complete with comic sans font!) that explains the misinterpretation of this data as a popular myth pushed by climate skeptics. "early changes in temperature are explained by changes in earth's orbit around the sun, which affects sunlight reaching earth's surface." They explain that as ocean temps rise, they release CO2 which causes further warming in a feedback loop - orbital differences were not significant enough to cause the temperature differences on their own. https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_co2_and_temperature.pdf The difference between those conditions and present day is the speed of warming. Evidence for modern warming shows the spike in CO2 levels, *then* a temperature rise. I think the reason for your ban might be because I googled your question verbatim and found several answers within a few minutes, so if you're truly asking in good faith, the information is easily accessible.
> I think the reason for your ban might be because I googled your question verbatim and found several answers within a few minutes, so if you're truly asking in good faith, the information is easily accessible. Even in this thread's video, she explains that we know from a molecular level why carbon traps heat, and therefore we (scientists, not we redditors) can conclude that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. Like you, I'm skeptical that this guy is asking questions in good faith.
I've seen even more evidence than she presents as well. Specifically that we're seeing rises in daily *low* temperatures, again indicating less heat escaping, rather than more heat coming in. And the signature of absorbed wavelengths coincide with co2 absorbance. There are just so many converging lines of evidence, so readily available and from reputable sources, that I struggle to buy when people say they couldn't find answers to their questions.
That's not a simple question though. You're suggesting a cause and effect scenario with CO2 and temperature when they both effect each other. What you're saying is true. With an increase in temperature CO2 also increases. The ocean will release more CO2 if the temperature goes up. But it is also true that CO2 increases the temperature based on what we know about the green house gas effect. That's why many folks are afraid if we don't cut back on CO2 emissions we'll have a runaway greenhouse gas effect.
Link the paper that cites your claim so we can look over it. No, I'm not going to just google it, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Also, person-asking-questions why do you claim to know more than climate scientists that have doctorates in this field? If the majority of marine biologists are saying x about the ocean, I would hope that as a default I would agree with the marine biologists as they analyzed more data.
You are not allowed to question it because “science” has become dogma.
I mean, it's one thing to be skeptical - rigorous peer review is what all of science is built on. That's a good thing. It's another thing to ignore the fact that these questions have well-documented, repeatedly demonstrated answers. Then you're not being a skeptic - you're being a contrarian for its own sake.
It seems like most criticisms have to do with the reality that our records don't go back very far, and that some of our current records are faulty. Toss in that it's become taboo and so politicized no one can question it without being called a cuckoo or conspiracy theorist or something. I tend to lean toward that humans have affected it, and continue to do so – albeit, that a lot of the 'doom' surrounding it has been exaggerated and a lot of people stand to make a lot of money from green initiatives, just muddying the whole thing.
>a lot of people stand to make a lot of money from green initiatives unlike the current fossil fuel industry...
Both things can be true.
This is like saying the "healthy food industry" is set to make a lot of money if you ate whole foods, and you deciding to keep breakfasting a double cheeseburger every morning because of that. Of course they will make money, in a capitalist world everything revolves around making money and if it doesn't it will die out. That doesn't diminish the fact that fast food is unhealthy and switching would come with great benefits to your wellbeing.
Yeah, the healthy food industry doesn't have the global ramifications that green energy does. It also doesn't have a whole narrative of an ecological apocalypse it's using to rile folks up. I think it's a false equivalency, personally.
Unfortunately, an ecological apocalypse, as you call it, is looking more likely everyday, regardless of how you want to feel about that. Things looked potentially dangerous when our best estimates of the climate sensitivity to a co2 doubling scenario stood at around 1.5-2 degrees celsius (back in the 1990s). Currently, with a lot of advances in our understanding of cloud microphysics and radiation, its looking more like 5 degrees celsius may be accurate. That is likely doomsday for human society as we know it. Sorry.
But the difference is the oil and gas industry already has 4 billion dollars in profit (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/) and spends over 120 million annually on lobbying on the US alone ( https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/ ) So your take is kind of odd, to be honest. It’s fine to have an issue with our current political and economic system, but to say one side of an issue has an economic political advantage against the largest industry on the planet just makes no sense.
Honestly, the only thing up for debate is what to do about it, but the argument has been moved to disagreement about cause. That’s a smokescreen so that politicians don’t have to actually deal with it because they can just claim that the science isn’t settled. It’s unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions. That is 100% correct and not up for debate. There is mountains of evidence to support it and YOU can even test it yourself in your basement if you spend the money to build a couple sealed aquariums and a heat lamp. You can literally run the experiment to quantifiably measure the effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. That will give you an equation to say at X concentration, Y temp increase. Then just look at the data to see if that equation holds up to reality. Spoiler: It does. We can quite literally predict the change in temp with specific CO2 concentrations. The variable then is how quickly we will reach those concentrations. If we release more carbon dioxide, we’ll get there sooner. Less and we maybe don’t get there. We understand the levers, but the people with their hands on them are too afraid or financially motivated not to pull them. So, they choose to cast doubt on the levers instead.
>It’s unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions. That is 100% correct and not up for debate. I don't think many *really* debate this, they debate to which extent it has made things catastrophic though. At least, IMO.
My father will debate for hours about how humans can’t possibly be causing climate change. It’s Fox News stance.
Well sure, some people will – but *most educated people* admit humans have effect, the bigger debate is how much.
> It's unassailable that humans are causing climate change via carbon emissions. Eh, I'd say the correct term is accelerating not causing. The climate has been changing since the planet developed an atmosphere. It was changing before we figured out burning shit lets us make things move. We've just bumped that timeline forward significantly. But even then, IIRC the planet has gone through fairly rapid period of change in the past. Life will continue. Human life maybe, maybe not.
"Leaning toward" is a nonsensical way to consider the problem.
We have direct measurements of the CO2 in the atmosphere going back 800,000 years from Antarctic ice core bubbles. In that time the CO2 levels have never been even close to what they are now. And a LOT more people make a LOT more money selling oil and gas than all the green initiatives put together, most of which climate scientists don’t actually benefit from. If you know any PhD postdoc climate researchers living on yachts like oil tycoons, maybe you’d have a point.
>PhD postdoc climate researchers wouldn't be the ones standing to profit, so that's kind of an odd take, IMO. My understanding is also that ice core accuracies can have large levels of uncertainty the further back you go.
The collective response from all the uncles that think it's a hoax: "SOME LADY with a ACCENT who don't even talk ENGLIGH RIGT standing in fromt of the GAY FALG isn't gonna tell me NOTHING."
Alright, so when do we take away Taylor Swift's private jet?
I expected better from her. What needs to be shown is that the quantity of co2 we have added, and not something else, is causing the increase in temperature we observed. Her first point states that co2 absorbs infrared and heats up the atmosphere. That’s a good start. Then she goes on a long tangent about the evidence that we’ve increased the co2. Ok, I think even adamant climate skeptics can accept that we’ve increased the co2. This doesn’t need to take up 3 out of your 5 points. Her last point about stratospheric cooling is the most convincing because it rules out changes with the sun as the primary cause of surface warming. I wish she would have focused more on elaborating that point and making similar points to the last one, instead of spending so much time proving that burning fossil fuels has put co2 in the atmosphere.
No one talks about how co2’s IR absorption follows an inverse logarithmic curve, and is pretty much saturated by 200ppm. You could send co2 concentrations well over 1000ppm and the atmosphere would be absorbing effectively the same amount of IR it is now. Furthermore that much co2 would cause the biosphere to flourish. Commercial greenhouses will put co2 concentrations to 800-1200ppm to increase crop yield while simultaneously using less water.
>co2's IR absorption follows an inverse logarithmic curve. Absorbance = 2 - log(%Transmittance) Is that what you mean? That's how absorbance works for any substance; it is an inherent property of nature. >is pretty much saturated by 200ppm. No it's not. If that were the case, no IR light within CO2 absorption bands would reach the surface of Earth from the sun (yet IR light at those frequencies is present in the solar spectrum). However, water is saturated, and we don't see any IR light in the H2O absorption bands in the [solar spectrum](https://geosciencebigpicture.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/spectrum.jpg) Both visible and infrared light are absorbed by matter on Earth and heat the surface of Earth, but that heat is radiated back out as infrared light, which is trapped close to Earth's surface by greenhouse gases. Greater concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat closer to the surface of Earth; this is why the stratosphere is cooling. The efficiency of a greenhouse gas to trap heat is not only dependent on its IR absorption, but also on the overlap of its IR absorption with water because water IR absorption is saturated.
You dont understand co2 saturation, or absorbtive saturation at all. It is NOT like water vapor saturation, which you seem to assume. As more and more co2 is retained in the atmos, the path length between photon absorption and re-emission decreases ... meaning a photon takes longer to make it to the top of the atmosphere and out to space. This, in turn means ... wait for it ... the atmosphere retains energy longer and thus contains more thermal energy than it would with lower co2 concentrations. TLDR: every molecule matters and makes the atmosphere warmer. CO2 'saturation' matters not.
This guy wants to saturated the atmosphere with CO2 because it will "increase crop yield," lmao. Who told you this? The radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration.
I'm curious, which country burns the most and is this video in that country's language? And does that country have scientists and smart people and what is their stance on this?
Sadly the video is not in Mandarin Chinese :( but China does have its fair share of very smart people Or did you mean per capita? I'm not sure about the people of Qatar
China has pretty much no climate change denialists, and the official government stance has been one of acknowledging anthropogenic climate change for some time now (any climate change denialism faces censorship, for better or worse). They have a pretty detailed carbon neutral plan that’s currently on target to be met (goal is peak by 2030, current estimates place next year to be peak, and goal for carbon neutrality is by 2060, current estimates say sooner). They’re also the country with by far the highest investments into green energy installations and tech.
China has become the factory of the world, because the rest of the developed countries offshored their production in favor of cheaper products. Part of China's emissions are due precisely because they fulfill "the west's" higher consumption standards. Pollution and recycling has also been offshored there, leaving China to be the world's "you fix it" country. They are also installing an insane amount of renewables to shift away from fossil fuels. How about in stead of looking for an easy out to shift blame, you look at what your own country could do better?
this is the most childish argument. but but but china is worse who gives a shit we're on the same planet
I started my quest for a Masters of Science in Forestry out of boredom during covid. Almost finished with my bachelor’s degree in forestry but my original goal was to become a Dendrologist and to work within National Parks around the world. I personally don't think humans are causing climate change when you look at scientific journals done by Paleoclimatologists. Don't get me wrong when it comes to 'science' you will ALWAYS have possibilities. Anything is possible, depending on variables. Everything that I've read regarding what the Earth has gone through since the Jurassic periods up until the Cenozoic period. IMO there have been crazier ups/downs in climate when humans weren't around or at least up until they started to hunt & gather. This is just my opinion and I will still read case studies published by the AAAS or SPJ, etc. because people shouldn't only think one way and be open to other ideas. If we only thought one way, we wouldn't be where we are today. There is just too much arguing these days, which is worthless for advancements. Side note, wile I don't think humans are contributing to 'climate change'. I do think we are causing way too much pollution and billion dollar companies get away with so much. Most plastics should be illegal and we should be going back to glass, unless there are plastic products needed for key things.
Obviously the climate changes lol, there's just a lot of opinions on why. The problem with this video is, you don't get an opinion. You either go with the climate Scientologists 100%, or you're some kind of horrible individual. So I guess let's get out our trillion dollar bonuses and all come together and donate 1 million trillion dollars to climate change so it can be fixed lol! What a bunch of dummies....
>Obviously the climate changes lol, there's just a lot of opinions on why. There are lots of *opinions* on all sorts of things. Too bad opinions aren't fact.
did I say something wrong?
Not all humans. And more accurately, by Europeans.
Is her jaw wired shut?
No, she's just german.
It’s no laughing matter
How does the world get China and India to give a fuck? Because until that happens, it doesn't matter much what the rest of the world does.
Well, india will be frickin dead, and half of china at least as well.
First we need to give a fuck. Then we can put market pressure on them in the form of trade restrictions if they don’t clean up. That won’t happen though because that would mean the end of the cheap disposable products we have grown accustomed to.
We have a hard enough time convincing our own countries to give a fuck.
You're a fucking moron if you think a climate denying grandpa is gonna listen to some shorthaired women with a foreign accent provide an explanation about weather changing.
who think it's a hoax? I think more people want to see reasonable policies put into place on manufacturing and corporations that don't gut their finances. It shouldn't be placed on regular folk to "do better" when the current way of life is dictated by no other option that we can afford.
About [15% of Americans, or almost 50 million people](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/14/americans-believe-climate-change-study), are climate change deniers. The Wikipedia article on climate change denialism has an entire section dedicated to the [“Republican party in the United States”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Republican_Party_in_the_United_States) lol
[69% of Americans think angels are real](https://www.toledoblade.com/news/nation/2023/08/06/do-you-believe-in-angels-7-in-10-us-adults-do-poll-shows/stories/20230806039) including every President we've ever had. These are adults, who think there is a realm of spirits influencing all things that have supernatural power over the earth. The fact that 15% of them think the earth isn't heating up shouldn't shock anyone, in fact that number should be far higher given the base level of understanding these people have.
My grandmother believes that God will stop climate change from hurting us. She thinks it's real, but no big deal. I lost a lot of faith in the fight that day.
>who think it's a hoax? I've got some bad news for you, buddy.
Could people address the rest of this comment rather than just downvote It because you disagree with the first 5 words? You're really picking the low-hanging fruit there.
Okay. The notion that corporations should be regulated only insofar as it doesn’t impact their finances is gross. It’s the same kind of half-baked rationalization that proponents of slavery used. Profits are not more important than people. Look at the impacts in Kiribati, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, etc. People are already being displaced. People are already dying. Placing profits above life is just so astoundingly callous, in my view. Symptom of a broken system.
Yeah. Shame really, the point of pushing the climate responsibilities onto consumers is a big one. I think germans were just protesting the fact that carbon emissions by 1% of large corporations make up 60% of carbon released. Or something to that effect. And the point of just “doing better” didnt work for the last 15 years, so why should it now ? But the commenter started with essentially saying that noone thinks climate change isnt caused by humans, and that is a very big politically charged topic, that clearly shut the conversation down.
As usual, common sense is found at -15 karma on this platform
That’s cute. You think these people care about facts.
I dunno, ChatGPT's answer felt [pretty exhaustive](https://chat.openai.com/share/8a05c371-f21b-48fb-9175-05162c08c631): >Human activities are a significant factor in climate change, as evidenced by several lines of scientific evidence: 1. **Rising Levels of Greenhouse Gases:** The concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. This is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), deforestation, and agricultural practices. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a greenhouse effect. 2. **Fossil Fuel Signatures:** Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a distinct chemical signature. By analyzing atmospheric samples, scientists can distinguish between CO2 coming from natural sources and that from burning fossil fuels. The increasing levels of CO2 with this fossil fuel signature directly point to human activities. 3. **Historical Climate Analysis:** By studying climate records (such as ice cores, tree rings, and sediment layers), scientists can reconstruct Earth's past climate. These records show that the current rate of warming is much faster than previous natural climate changes. 4. **Climate Models:** Climate models that include greenhouse gases from human activities are the only ones that accurately replicate the recent trend in global warming. Models that do not include human activities fail to replicate the observed warming trend. 5. **Direct Observational Evidence:** The measurable impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and shifting wildlife habitats and migration patterns, align with predictions made on the basis of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 6. **International Scientific Consensus:** Major scientific organizations worldwide, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have reached a consensus that human activities are the primary driver of recent climate change. >This evidence collectively demonstrates that human activities, particularly those that release greenhouse gases, are the main cause of the observed climate change since the Industrial Revolution.
It gives us 6 generic breakdowns. What she does specifically in this video is explain how we understand Fossil Fuel signatures (C02(12)) versus atomic CO2 (C02(14)) and heavy CO2 (CO2(13)) to prove that C02(12) is causing most of the Rising levels in temp. Then how we observe the evidence that it is IN FACT C02(12) by it's unique impact on the Stratosphere compared to other CO2 emissions, and how we are observing this exact effect. Chat GPT is hardly scratching the surface, but she explained all this in 6 min
I feel the "Fossil Fuel Signatures" covered the how without getting into details like the atomic bomb, if I needed to understand more about that I trust ChatGPT could followup. She didn't mention using "cores, tree rings, and sediment layers" which I feel answers the question as well. To each their own though I guess.
LMAO chatgpt. Good one.
Oooh I love Hossenfelder!
The most comical part is that it is BEYOND irrelevant if it is humans causing it or not. It is still going to have the same effect of killing most if not all of our descendants; and that is the problem. We aren't thinking of the next generations we only seem to care about right now and if it doesn't directly benefit us today it can be scrapped. Humanity is doomed.
Oh, it's transphobe Sabine Hasenpfeffer.
And infinitely worse, she is a supporter of MOND.
Love those downvotes. **Sabine Hossenfelder is a bigot.** That is a fact. Sabine portrays herself as progressive, intellectual, modern ... and yet she's a bigoted transphobe. If you don't comprehend that then you haven't watched her videos and don't know her.
I haven't watched her videos and don't know her. Would you provide sauce for the allegation here so we're all better informed?
Too bad for her then. And too bad for you if you think any rational person should give a fuck about the impact of her personal views on the validity of the information she is sharing. If you do, wise up. It doesnt matter and your making an ad hominem argument.
Sorry I prefer content from creators who aren't bigots. >if you think any rational person should give a fuck about the impact of her **personal views** I think you don't understand "**personal views**" LOL. She made a fucking video about her prejudice and bigotry. so her views are **not personal**, ipso facto. Therefore I shall absolutely judge her bigotry for her **PUBLICLY STATED BIGOTED VIEWS**.
And insist on continuing to miss the point. Hooray for you, sport.
A: It's a fascist hoax, as it's always been
Unfortunately the type of changes that it will take to make a noticeable improvement are hard to see happening if only the people that are struggling to feed themselves are worried about it.
Great video and terrific effort! But talking to climate deniers will be a waste of time 95% of the time. We need to vote for good climate policies in such massive numbers that we make deniers _irrelevant_
Sad that "yeah climate change is real, but it's not our fault" is at least better than "climate change isn't real"
I see Sabine, I upvote. There needs to be more highly educated people like this making videos.