Climate Change is a Non Issue (We're Doomed if It's Man Made)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Merch: tarlwarwick.ne...
Merch: tarlwarwick.ne...
Support my work via donation:
Patreon: / styxhexenhammer666
Hatreon: hatreon.us/Sty...
My literary works:
Blogger: tarlwarwickbook...
Wordpress: tarlwarwick.wo...
My other platforms:
Twitter: / styx666official
Gab: gab.ai/Styx666...
Facebook: / styxhexenhammer666offi...
Minds: www.minds.com/...
Pewtube: pew.tube/user/...
Bitchute: www.bitchute.c...
Dailymotion: www.dailymotio... Donate Via Cryptocurrency:
Bitcoin: 17q1BfF2up8orEKN8DQgpEPX83RfbAZ5QL
Ethereum: 0x956e7aF6706C3b5E2cf7e15c16c7018c4f42aF79
Litecoin: LQNJed6vDhR4U4LB7g8jGep4UQ7yeqJdPw
We need to ban (or at least tax and regulate) volcanoes.
Paddy O'Lantern they're aren't 7 billion volcanoes
Sunny Mehta That's what they want you to believe....jk
Sunny Mehta I'm all for massive depopulation.
Paddy O'Lantern who are "they"?
cuz last time i checked it's the multibillion dollar fossil fuel industries that want to continue to surpress clean energy and maintain the status quo.
Sunny Mehta Fine then they may not be a priority, lets blow up the volcano's just in case....
umm did you not see the polar bear on the little iceberg
That polar bear was trying to how get the people on the ship.
@KELLI2L2no shit sherlock
Something polar bears have been doing forever.
Nice appeal to emotion
We are currently in an ice age. An ice age is defined if there is a lot of a ice in any part of the world, i.g. the polar ice caps.
Edit: You can neutralize methane from cow farts by adding garlic to their diet I believe. Discovered by some Welsh farmers.
Think about the vast herds of herbivores that we are taught existed all over. Cattle on range grasses, don't emit any more methane than other ruminants.
i wonder when people talk about cows and methane if anyone ever considered how much the wild large mammal population decreased while the population of cattle has grown. do we create more methane than nature did?
there are no millions of buffalos roaming around in america, there are ~60% less large mammals in africa than in the '70s.
do you know anyone how did the math on methane emission with these things in mind?
+Anonymous Badger
I actually raise cattle on natural range land in southern New Mexico. Most grazing animals in the world are ruminants, just like cattle, wether they live where it is green 12 months out of the year or one. It is dry 8 months out of the year where I live. An exception to this is the horse and its cousins, who are simple stomach animals even though the majority of their digestion is still through fermentation. The main difference with methane production in cattle is caused by feeding grains and starches such as in a feedlot. A cow munching grass out in the hills is no different methane wise than a buffalo. If you feel it helps the environment, support grass fed natural beef. Our cattle run in a rockpile, that would be unsuitable for any other kind of agriculture. Through good management practices, we not only produce food, but maintain an enhanced environment for the wildlife that coexist with us.
+Anonymous Badger
as I pointed out, horses are not ruminant animals, leading to certain digestive problems. Most cattle are not raised in apple orchards. No matter how green or lush the natural rangland vegetation gets, I have never seen cows bloat on it. This is based on experience in five western states. Most bloat problems with cattle are caused by feeding things that are unnatural for them, such as concentrated feeds, some crops , and apparently large quantities of apples.Ruminant animals exist naturally in a wide variety of places, both wet and dry, and are susceptible to parasites and toxic plants, like any other animal. I don't believe methane produced by cattle under range conditions ultimately affects anything when considering the big picture. If you are concerned about cattle and methane, then support grass fed beef as opposed to feedlot.
Im more worried about walking down the street and catching a bullet then carbon but thats just me
There's a combination of feedback loops. Permafrost melting is a very severe positive feedback loop (but also one that decays real fast again) but the natural carbon cycle also sequesters carbon back into either the soil or into plants. And that's just emission concentrations (there's also albedo and ocean circulation which we don't fully understand).
The idea of curbing climate change is to beat the positive feedback loops enough that the negative feedback loops keep the warming in check. That is possible. Developing nations are willing. Europe is willing. Only the US, Australia and OPEC aren't pulling their weight.
Our world is like someone who has to shit badly, running towards a toilet and is one fart away from messy underwear. The fart being a Volcano or massive release of methane hydrates.
In order to control the climate all we need is a dimmer switch on the Sun and be able to control the Earth's orbit. No big deal.
Yall can send them feedback about this. You ought to do that.
AGW(TM) is just one of those distractions we use to stop us from thinking about the meaninglessness of life in an uncaring universe.
Either that or I've been watching too much Bojack Horseman.
Global warming is essentially the warming of lowest layer of the atmosphere and there must exist a mechanism by which some excess heat in the troposphere could leak upwards.
If there is some excess heat due to excess carbon dioxide in the first place.
Additionally the nations that can't support their populations must reduce the size of families. Just moving people from continent to continent does not and will not reduce population densities but move the problem to somewhere else.
Much of the carbon in the crust was originally in the atmosphere until the evolution of carbon fixing prokaryotes, also resulting in the release of O2 from the CO2, hence we now have a O2 rich and CO2 poor atmosphere . Also much CO2 is dissolved and involved with the carbon cycle in the ocean, carbonic acid, calcium carbonate.
the transition from boul to bub
according to scientists,astrophysicists ALL the planets in the solar system are getting hotter so it's possibly complimented by man ,but not all our fault. It's all about cap,trade/carbon tax etc. MONEY=paying money without any returning accountability.
But..but... Obama told me the Paris Climate Deal will save the world.
Browns Fan Browns may save some emissions losing so much this season, less fans, less hotdogs and such.
+Bukk Maybe we should change our name to "Greens".
Browns Fan Good news is Cleveland seems great for the occult, abandoned, poor and such. Styx talked of desecration and such of poorer areas in one vid awhile ago.
nuclear energy is the cleanest energy
No, because it has to be mined with equipment which uses fossil fuel, transported similarly, and rigged into a plant built with the same.
mr snoop tell that to the Japanese near Fukushima
not to mention the nuclear waste it creates
Jeff Kuck oh, you mean Japanese who took short cuts, and didn't use gravity fed cooling?
The vitrification process was ready to go back in the 70's. It can be contained and stored safely.
Will styx live stream during the end of the world?
Libertas Aeterna I sure hope so
thats about all, peace out
Most Unbearable Thing: *People living in the unproductive, coastal mega cities talking about climate change, and then waddling down to the store to get food and drink that is trucked in from 1000 miles away*
***** Two problems. 1. The electricity has to come purely from solar and wind. 2. There are no electric only large farm implements.
***** Maybe. Even if a new series of electric only tractors and combines came out today, 1. they'll have to be heavily subsidized (or just free) to make the switch economically feasible, 2. what about the cargo ships that take grains to food import-dependent countries, like China and Japan?
Los Angeles basically.
+Brandon Collins : Highly unlikely they will improve in the future. There are limitations to solar energy and even electricity as an energy source. It's not likely at all we will see some kind of superduper next generation solar panels that have ridiculous efficiencies. The physics so far just doesn't agree it's possible. Look into solar roadways debunking videos and you'll see.
+CliffFitter89 Yeah, I love how people in LA complain about this, yet own like 6 cars none of which are electric.
Speaking of China's emissions, India is quickly catching up to them and have shown no signs of decreasing the rate of pollution over the last decade.
but India is a Holy Cow, it's not permitted to criticize India , "the biggest democracy", hem, hem...
One of the things I like about India is that you are allowed to criticize them. They are not the ones trying to police the internet.
...Butter Chicken is delicious...
bigwhitecat No it is not.
Joshua Bradley very true
Optimistic Styx is best Styx
Malaise troll sticks is best sticks :P
Styx, Nuclear is the ONLY answer. Please look into Thorium reactors; your fearmongering about Chernobyl is what's dooming us.
Nuclear would be good as long as we don't have any radio active waste that doesn't leak then it will be okay.Radio active waste is a serious threat to water, plants,animals,and people.
FuckTheGlobal Establishment
Radioactive waste is vastly overstated. People talk about how bad Fukushima was, but consider this. No one died from the radiation leak. No one even got sick from it. So what if radiation was detected that was twice the usual background level; I bet your average basement has radiation just as high from radon.
Nuclear is not the answer.
crazywaffleking
Great addition to the discussion.
Millitron
I read some report before which said that if we want to supply 100% of the world's electricity needs with nuclear it would require thousands of new nuclear plants to be built. With that number it is expected we would see some type of Fukushima or Chernobyl event take place every 4-5 years on average.
Nuclear isn't renewable, they create toxic waste which lasts a long time, and the cost to build a plant is astronomical.
Finally, I was starting to feel like the only one who legitimately believed we had little to do with this heat and cooling cycle who wasn't a neocon.
What difference at this point does it make?
Frank Epps LOL. I see what you did there.
The difference is, if we try to do better we might be able to. But if we just ignore our own culpability and just go buck wild polluting our chances of increasing the suffering of our planet rises.
Bryn Bailey Why on Earth, no pun intended, would we regress by about a 100 years into the past & resurrect habits we worked for decades to eliminate? Post apocalyptic world, I guess, could do that. But even then, the problem with overpopulation & industry will have been solved.
Bryn Bailey and?
Jesus, Razorfist has lost weight since I last watched him.
A single volcano eruption lets out more green house gases than all the cars in the world.
Your a smart ducky! I have been tortured by these bastards for almost my whole life at 56 my give a damn broke..........
That is factually untrue.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
So do you believe this www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/21/how-trump-knows-continued-global-warming-make-earth-uninhabitable-100-years-now.html
Onkel Micke
The world burns 85 Million barrels of Oil per day. Those are 45 Supertankers of Oil for every 24 hours.
And there is a major difference between the »geographic issues« of global warming and the biological issues of rising the atmospheric CO2.
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1828/20160414
Onkel Micke The wisdom is knowing the difference between a theory & the reality. And any boob can say that yes, if the earth suddenly decided to vacation on the sun, we are indeed, baked.
"You worry too much
You make yourself sad
You can't change fate
But don't feel so bad
Enjoy it while you can
It's just like the weather
So quit complaining brother
No one lives forever"
-Oingo Boingo
CO2 Parts-per million right now: .4 PPM
CO2 During the Jurassic and Triassic: 1000-2000 PPM
"anthropogenic" not "anthropic"
As a greek I can confirm.
*****
I hadn't googled it, no. Just from having read about it and taking courses on it.
But now I have googled it. There are approximately 100x as many results for "anthropogenic climate change" as for "anthropic climate change."
I concede that it is used sparingly. There is nothing inherent in the word that precludes its use in this context, but it generally isn't.
Anthropogenic is more specific in relating to human activities rather than just being 'involving humans in some way.'
Actually anthropic means of or relating to humans. Anthropological or anthropogenic are also correct. Pick any one of the three.
The most accurate term may be "Anthropogenic biome".
Whats the point if we slow it down? Answer : Technology grows exponentially. We could be WAY more ready in 100 years than we would be in 50 years. Nano tech alone could make us immune to breathing smog.
Also... stop using nuclear? Nuclear is our only hope at the moment from getting off of fossil fuels!
Fahraynk Your 100% right about nuclear. I think people get confused between nuclear fission and fusion reactors. Fusion reactors are much more efficient/stable; in theory.
Anti-matter may also become a necessity for larger needs of energy.
I mean classical nuclear power.
Clean air, clean water, clean food is my motto. None of this climate change BS.
Devin Cook so still no coal, oil and gas. Lets convert to renewables right now
Unpopular Opinion Time has GOT to become a regular segment:)
Disco Sisterwife pretty much every video he posts is unpopular opinion time at least in regards to the mainstream.
I'm still betting on Grand hoax. It is not coincidence that the solution they offer is carbon tax. So as an economist I can tell you that only effect would be greater government to private sector ratio. Therefore the motivation isn't pure.
I'm sure you don't care about product placement, but Redbull better recognize and send some cases.
Here's our choices:
1. Don't change anything and then billions die as the planet gets too hot.
2. Change everything, go back to living in pre-industrial tech, and billions die from starvation as modern farms get replaced with wagon wheel and shovel poop plantations.
3. Change some and leave some the same, and half a billion die from the stuff you changed, and half a billion die from the stuff left the same.
I choose #1 because that is the option that involves the least amount of effort and I am very lazy.
Hey Batman, what killed the dinosaurs? THE ICE AGE!!!!
Did you know that the outer planets have also been heating up during modern astronomical observation? This would indicate solar emissions as the reason for Earth climate change, with man representing just the tiniest bit of climate impact.
EXACTLY! Anthropocentric climate change has nothing to do with global warming, which is a fact, anthropocentric climate change has neither been proved or disproved to a degree of certainty that is within tolerances of modern scientific scrutiny, and often disregards data sets for the urban island heating effect (black top absorption, storage and radiation back into the atmosphere of solar rays) and Global mean historic temperatures, or temperature shifts going back to prehistoric times.
I'm really liking this channel more and more. Pretty much saying what I've been thinking about almost every topic. Very refreshing to see it put to words. Keep it up!
It will not destroy mankind. We have had 10x this CO2 level in the past there was no run away warming, animals could survive perfectly fine, in fact plants are evolved mainly to use 4000ppm we are at 450. ALL of the CO2 in oil used to be in the atmosphere and it was not the end. Thats where the CO2 came from...
Spencer23$ - Clash Royale and Clash of Clans it was also way hotter and seas were much higher back then
Spencer is a perfect example of a clueless idiot.
The atmosphere was different as well.
Exactly. It might solve our food resource problem as it will cause fields of fruit and veggies to naturally come to life.
@@ONESPECIES I don't know, he is right after all. All the carbon that is in the oil was once in the atmosphere.
Agree all the way...just as relevant today. The planet tends to do what “it” does. And it isn’t a predictable algorithm
Look at this guy thinking he knows more than the entire world's geophysicists and climatologists. Thank god a youtuber has figured out what basically no other scientist on the planet has managed. If you actually ask these people about the medieval warming period you'd find out that 1) No, the temperatures were not as warm as they are today. 2) Were the temperatures of the medieval warming generally higher, yes, they were about as warm as the late 19th early 20th century. 3) The causes of medieval warming are not the same as those of today. Scientist understand and KNOW that during the medieval warming period the sun went through a period increased activity and therefore the earth was subjected to higher than normal solar radiation which heated the earth. There is also some evidence is suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic, which could explain extraordinary warmth in that region during that time. 4) The sun is currently going through a solar minimum which means the earth should be cooling and not having record breaking high temperatures month after month year after year. 5) Bottom line, scientists are well aware of the medieval warming, however, the causes of that warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
Earth is going Venus with a Mars type of behavior.
Right action is always a plus.
Your summary is pretty good Styx. As a science graduate in climatology and geology around 1990, I've followed this for almost 30 years. It was a guess / scam from the start. The most convincing science I see indicates that we're heading for a pretty severe cooling phase in the next 30 years or so due to a reduction in solar activity. Record Greenland ice sheets this year should pretty much end the politicization of CAGW. Satellite data has already shown the model projections were way off, and the CO2 effect multiplication factor has been proved erroneous, such that it's unlikely a 10 times increase in glorious plant food CO2 would probably not increase avg temps by more than 2 degrees, which would be glorious. Higher temps = less weather severity. The biosphere thrived millions of years ago with 10+x higher CO2 levels than today.
Bullshit, the point is that the environmental cha ge at rapid rate has a substantial effect on the economy as well as wildlife and the problem is that some areas will become dryer more often and other areas will become colder and wetter becoming more prone to flooding. The scientific consensus is clear that man made climate change is happening the debate is over the effects and solutions. My college geography and oceanography classes covered this and point to the fact that some of the effects are unknown. The proponents of climate denial are like the cigarette companies suppressing info about the harm of their products.
spearfisherman308 the consensus? sorry but it's not a settled fact.
spearfisherman308
Brain dead metaphor re cig companies. The funding goes approx 10,000:1 in the direction of the alarmists. Climate science, which was a niche department when I studied it, have exploded with funding and they know what kind of results attract additional funding and what kind of opinions gets one kicked out of the money pit. Similar result for media... can end one's career to question any aspect of catastrophism related to climate change and the ridiculous political 'so called' solution. Who'da guessed taxes and a centralized world governmental authority would be the proposed solution? hmmm, funnily enough the father of the IPCC Maurice Strong predicted this 50 years ago, when he started the scam: www.corbettreport.com/maurice-strong-is-dead/
Political power + $1.5 Trillion per year business now + Fear Sells in media. Globalists want it as a means of centralizing power as part of their aim for a one world government and one world currency. They have written about this plan, it's not a tin foil hat conspiracy.
+Colin Colenso Talk about ignorance, you give a me a link to an unscientific website instead of linking me to a peer reviewed scientific papaer showing how CO2 cannot cause climate change or that the incease is not man made. I suggest you look at potholer54 channel about the subject where her refutes everything major claim by climate denialist.
I understand this is an older video, but please talk more about this! I've found roughly a handful of environmentalism-related videos on your channel and would really like to see more!
The population of china is about 1.5 billion, and india is about 1.5 billion.
+ Lee. They lie up the numbers.
So, because we are doomed, we shouldn't slow it down?
Lasting a few generations longer, may allow us to find brand new solutions
In order to slow things down we'd have to put a pin in everything around the world. Economically it's impossible. Culturally it's impossible. And it's still questionable because we don't entirely have a great understanding of the future of the planet.
If we're in trouble we are already dead. Technology advances brilliantly fast but you can't stall a doomsday clock if you believe in the climate Change rhetoric.
Oda Swifteye You're talking about stopping it completely, not slowing it down.
James Osyris In order to slow it down we'd have to get the factories of the world to reduce their pollution.
You heard Styx. The bulk of our population isn't in countries where we care about this sort of thing. It's in parts of the developing worlds where they want technology and money. Getting them to stop would be just as easy as getting them to slow down.
Carbon Dioxide is the trigger for heating. Not the major heating source.
Styx, Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island style accidents literally can't happen in modern reactors. Nuclear is safe as fuck. Coal emissions kill hundreds every year in the US. Nuclear's deaths per kilowatt hours generated is miniscule compared to all other forms of energy. Did you know France generates 80% of it's electricity with nuclear? Of course, they don't have the same wealth of natural resources we do. I'm more of an "all of the above" guy when it comes to energy. If it can survive in the free market, have at it.
Also, the US would be a much better position to effect positive change on the environment if we were 100% energy independent.
Great Video Styx. I am with you on this one....
This year, CO2 passed 400 Parts per million (this is historically unprecedented). Positive feedback is a growing problem, loss of reflective ice and increased methane from previously frozen tundra. No ice age, just persistent warming and overpopulation. It is happening and human activity is solely responsible. I agree, any human response will be feeble at best.
We tend to give ourselves way too much Credit for our effect. Obviously we may be accelerating natural cycles that have existed for many millions or Billions of years but the carbon & greenhouse gases that exist on this planet have for the most part been here forever. At different Points in history it has been released by natural or geological events and yet here we still are.
We also always tend to be very prophetic about our own doom. Interesting enough we forget that Humans are one of the most adaptable & Creative animals ever to have existed. For over two million years we have survived everything this world has thrown at us Ice Ages, Warming, Floods and all manners of disaster.
We are now at the threshold of being able to manipulate our own Genetics and remake ourselves to survive in any environment. What we need more now is faith in our ability and o work the problem.
CO2 is wonderful, we need it in the air, its very low and we live in a slightly warmer period between Ice ages.
More CO2 is more plant life and more plant life means more life as more food production.
A much colder climate is much worse than a warmer climate.
We know how lively Earth was when CO2 was high and Antarctica was inhabitable.
Mammals too lived in that climate, so can we!
This was a great video you expressed everything i would have said Thank You!
Styx. I am associated with the deployment and management of multipurpose satellites. With access to the some of the most knowledgeable geo-wizards, I have had many opportunities to get the actual facts on how the planet works and what impact man has on climate change.
None. Pollution is bad for the life on this planet. Not just humans, every life form that works in symbiotic harmony. We need to advance and we need to clean up what we can. The accuracy in monitoring gas levels at various points in the atmosphere has only been realistic since the 70s. There is no real way to concatenate the variables as it applies to "warming". Simply put, what impact we have on the climate is nothing compared the inconsistency in the sun, our orbit of that sun and the constant pulling and pushing of the ocean's mass.
We have more to worry about from Mother Nature than we do our CURRENT output of emissions.
You are right about being more efficient, getting greener and trying to spare the other life on this planet.
I'd like global warming winters are freezing in Michigan.
haha i've been saying that too. maybe "global warming" is a GOOD thing??!!??
maybe we're staving off another ice age? maybe in the grand scheme of things, oil/fossil fuels were given to use exactly for that reason - to burn them up and use them until depletion, and in the meantime, while the earth warms to a nice warm climate, in the next 500 years, when the fossil fuels run out, we'll find a new source of energy. :-)
Well, thanks for clarifying at least. While there may be periods in human history roughly as warm as we see today, we can say with absolute certainty that never before in human history have atmospheric CO2 levels been this high. We know this from direct measurement of ancient atmospheric samples preserved in the ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica. These cores give us direct measurements going back approx. 800,000 years.
We also know, from direct observation, the the north polar region is warming at a rate significantly faster than the mid latitudes or equatorial regions. Consequently, artic sea ice extent has been in rapid decline for several decades. The effect is particularly dramatic when you look at the proportion of old sea to new sea ice. The past few years have seen record or close to record lows in summer sea ice extent in the article region.
And while precise predictions may not be possible, that fact is a red herring argument. If current trends continue - and there is little evidence to suggest they won't, then we are looking at ice-free summers in the artic at some time in the near future, be it one year or 50. An ice-free summer in the Arctic is something that has not happened in recorded human history.
The CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not disputed by serious scientist. The mechanism by which it operates is both well researched and well understood.
Also, no serious climate scientist disputes that a certain amount of greenhouse warming is a good this - this is largely provided by global water vapor. Without it, our planet would be much colder.
But it is possible to get too much of a good thing. If you don't get enough potassium or iron, you can die. But get too much and you are just as dead.
When you see a picture of Earths atmosphere taken from space, it becomes clear just what a thin and delicate layer of gasses it is that both protects us and sustains us. To think of that exceedingly layer as something so vast, as something so close to infinite that human activity could never alter it in significant ways, in ways that that could damage it to a point that it no longer protects or sustains us... that is simply hubris on an unbelievable scale.
Likewise, to believe that humans lack the ability to make significant changes that lessen damage to the atmosphere - which can fix the damage... that is equally foolish. The damage to our ozone layer stands as testament to our ability to both recognize a problem and effectively address it.
Even the scientists who believe we have long past the tipping point and are no looking at an extinction level event - Guy McPherson for example - even he does not advocate doing nothing. First he acknowledges that he may be wrong - and that if he is, then acting now may be the difference between a very serious problem and an ELE. He clearly states that hopelessness gain us nothing.
The most extreme scientific position, the position that most closely mirrors the position you seem to embrace I. e. do nothing and don't worry. That would be mirrored by the work of Tim Garrett who believes that civilization itself is a heat engine. If he is correct, then it's heads you lose, tails you lose and so yes, best thing to do is stop worrying. None of us are going to make it.
I don't know that Garrett is wrong - I've never read a convincing argument for why he might be wrong. But it is at this point that my own cognitive dissonance sets in and I jump quickly to "it can't be true because I REALLY don't want it to be true". Such a logical fallacy provides me with warm and cozy albeit false sense of security.
we have to become cyborgs to survive. that's probably our future anyway
You got a point
The difference between our grandchildren and our great great grandchildren receiving a doomed planet is that our great great grandchildren are more likely to develop advanced technology that may combat the issue.
I get the point that you are making and I agree almost entirely, except for this part. If you told people a hundred years ago that we'd be tampering with our own genetic fabric in 2016, they wouldn't even acknowledge the claim. It is realistic to consider that the possible technological innovations that could alternatively solve this issue are far more likely to come in 200 years than in 100.
We need to start bioengineering Mars as are next planet.
If we have the ability to spruce up Mars, why not fix Earth? Assuming it needs a fixin' of course.
I think the term is terraforming.
PowerCookie1 Is soil on mars referred to as "terra" as in earth?
hobo sapien it means making an environment more earth-like.
PowerCookie1 I know I am being a smart ass about it. Terra means earth in latin.
There is almost no disagreement among scientists about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic. NASA is pretty clear about that
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
What? NASA? OH NO, but I thought this genius had it all figured out! Thank god youtubers, who have literally ZERO, and I mean ZERO scientific training in this stuff, can hop onto youtube espouse bullshit, and have thousands around the world listen and think he's makin decent points. He is right about one thing, we are doomed, and his video proved it, but not in the way he thought.
Exactly. Trump is validating a lot of people who just aren't that well-informed. The scientists and experts have put in tremendous amount of effort on these issues and have found technical solutions for climate change. But special interests have just stopped us from implementing them (i.e. fossil fuel companies that will lose money).
Trusting this guy over 97% of the scientific community.
If half the population of the world would live in earthships, we'd be fine. Those things are badass! Colonies of those things would be awesome.
If anyone knows anything about history - anthropological, archaeological, geologic, even biblical, one realizes climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically and quickly. Sometimes we have mini-ice ages (the Calamitous 14th Century is a good example). People ignore the fact that the Norsemen (Vikings) expanded their reach during a warm period. Their settlements in Greenland and Iceland were abandoned, and even covered by glaciers, during a cold period. I get so annoyed -- annoyed isn't the right word - irate at idiots who are actual science deniers. Those who want to suppress any research that does not support the global warming bullshit agenda. Why does one suppose frozen mummies are occasionally exposed in Peru? It's because glaciers retreat. People bury or leave bodies on the open slopes. Then glaciers- snow and ice- expand and cover the bodies. Then the glaciers retreat again. It's normal. Oh my god. It drives me so crazy.
I agree with you that we need to clean up after ourselves and take responsibility for what we put out there, but I think we make about as much difference as a gnat fart in a hurricane in the grand scheme. Great video! Subscribed :)
The "run-away greenhouse effect" hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited - so your description of a fried-like-a-potato-chip description is not possible. That leaves the upside is far more likely than the downside. At least regarding CO2 - which is, at it's base - plant food.
Ice core samples show there have been times in the past where the Earth has had far more Co2 and this was long before mankind/
can't wait for more shit to be thoroughly discredited.
This is the most intelligent and common sense discussion about climate change (whether natural or man made) I've heard yet. Thank you for posting this.
I think it's a combination of both. Man made climate change is quickening the thinning of the atmosphere, which would be occurring anyways over a much longer period of time. People often scoff at this idea and point out that it would be billions of years normally, but mankind is definitely helping it along quite a bit.
Yeah, all those scientists must have overlooked something. They probably forgot to factor in the massive effects random opinions into their calculations.
I'm all for cleaning things up as much as possible,great.But as far as the "climate change scientists" go,they leave a lot of important points out.The first one is that the only constant in anything is "change",nothing stays the same,so that's just semantics. Then they don't ever like to talk much about things like the hottest,driest period ever recorded in history was in the early 1600s and contributed to starvation at Jamestown.They like to talk about the past several decades and that's it.I also am skeptical of their motives,these people LIVE for govt. funding,that's what keeps them going.And if you want more funding than anybody else,study something "global",that is supposed to be affecting the entire Earth.If they really believe that human activities are responsible for it,looks to me like the UN would force China to stop burning tires. The US has more than enough regulations,and some of them need to be done away with.
Well put. I don't think I have ever agreed with someone on the issues surrounding anthropogenic climate change as much as I do you.
Also, Books of Blood \m/_
So ignoring methane hydrate that is already erupting on land under the ice in the arctic and all the deposits off every continent for the moment. Where is my town and many others going to get their water once all the glaciers are gone? They are already 5% of what they were when I was a child. Where are the aquifers going to get their water?
There have been MANY ice ages so far and there is NO WAY anything stupid humans are doing is going to stop another one from coming.
anyone remember the Ishmael book by Daniel Quinn.. you can get it at Amazon.. the Audio is awesome
just going to say it people can live throw almost anything, nothing short of nuclear holocaust or a asteroid strike will remove use from this planet.
Regardless of whether or not this man-made the idea that we can't do anything about it seems quite foolish.
Instead of trying to stifle industry why not endeavor to Further develop it? Specifically ways to Directly affect the climate?
Why can't we use technological solutions to change the planets climate? People are talking about Terraforming Mars. Compared to that adjusting Earths temperature sounds like nothing.
Why couldn't we have some kind of giant vacuum cleaner to suck out the CO2 for example?
I know it sounds stupid but such things are actually being worked on. It's probably insanely complicated and would take much time to develop but if we find NEW technological breakthroughs it's a much better solution.
Consuming less or focusing on green energy is just a band-aid. Banning things and making regulations is like chemo.
Working on Terraforming(essentially what this is) would create More additional jobs rather than lose them and would have far reaching applications. And it's a Permanent cure even IF this is just a natural cycle.
Check out Albedo Yachts. They're genius ideas. Cheap and effective.
*Also notice if you type into Google or Bing it doesn't show up in search suggestions until it's completely typed out*
True. Technology is advancing at a faster rate than ever before, and its to be expected to increase even more. The more advanced tech becomes, the faster we get other new techs developed. I think one of the things that will save us is 3D printing..we might be able to 3d print food, clothes(there is actually beta version of cloth printing already), etc...that could help us in the long run immensely. People forget that technology is not against nature, it is similar to nature. We just need to figure out exactly how to make it work for us. I think before the "dooms day" prediction by the new religion called climate change, we will figure out how to save our planet from further damage..and it will most likely come in the form of terraforming. I just hope Im alive to see it before i die...humanity has approximately 60 years or so before i drop dead..they better get a crack on...i wanna see some cool tech shit before i die..or maybe..find a way to transfer minds to robot bodies...
Im not scared of dying..but i am too damn curious about tech advancement and space travel to want to die...if i see those, i will die happily. LOL.
UA-cam, on your video, adds a lil picture and link to the real settled science to counteract your white hate of the earth of colors
To take a silly solution from Futurama about the problem of landfills, just blast all that shit into space towards the sun.
Paying higher taxes won't save us but cleaning up is a good idea
i have a question sir do you beleave in ET and ould there technology save us?
How about a worldwide straw draw? 500 million long straws
I know this is off subject but every time I look at one of your videos I always say"alright UA-cam"....
Doesn't matter either way. Let's clean this planet up regardless! It's a mess! Everyone wins. Hooray! Ave Styx!
In my opinion, the entire climate change issue is a crock of shite. The establishment, and it's cronies (including scientists) have been bitching about this since (at the least, by my memory) the mid sixties. In fact, in 1979, there was a Newsweek magazine issue, where scientists were conveying the theory that due to man made implications combined with the level of our (the world) fossil fuel use, over the course of the next 8.7 years a 2 degree temperature shift would occur, and combined with other symptoms and effects would cause the end of the world by the time those 8.7 years had elapsed.
Now imagine this. It's now the year 2016, and guess what? We're still here. Obviously. Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally in agreement with Styx (and environmentalists) who would generally like to see the world "cleaned up" to a greater degree. But this is getting ridiculous.
To make matters worse, when anyone raises contentions regarding the climate change issue, the hardcore supporters of the theory ALWAYS roll back to their most fundamental argument: The weather. The first thing they'll do, is bring up some catastrophic weather event that recently happened, and swear up and down how it was caused by climate change. Now if you go back and watch any news coverage of the event (or many of them, at least), one detail that you'll commonly see conveyed in the coverage is that said weather event was "the first time it's happened in FIFTY YEARS.". Or "25 YEARS", or "100 YEARS". Which identifies a very critical piece of information that everyone seems to just ignore and overlook:
IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE!
Now if you follow scientific records regarding this subject, or grab a good almanac that traces such things going back... Oh I dunno, depends on the almanac... You'll find that there's a common theme. All these things that people are manufacturing reasons to freak out about? Have happened before. They might not be common. But they've occurred before, and in some cases, on multiple occasions.
Ultimately, to Styx's ultimate point? It doesn't matter. We have more important things to worry about, and when it comes down to it, there is actually no genuinely empirical (make sure you read the definition of that word before posting an argument) evidence that anything regarding our climate or weather is a direct result of man made variables.
fantastic comment!
need to be on every one of these climate change videos ;-)
Anthropic: "The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it."
You wannabe cerebral hemorrhaging idiots: he's using the term very correctly...
Fusion is always 30 years away.
here is thought, adapt or die
Have we destroyed a earth 4.3 billion years old in a mere 200 -250 years?
tfinn08 Naw the earth will be just fine it's humans who will be screwed
Finally someone with common sense talking about climate change
You dismiss the possibility of humanity eventually developing the technology to reverse climate change.
Poor attitude. Technology, especially exported to 3rd world, will help greatly reduce Co2 and decrease pollution.
Climate change MIGHT help Australia. Basic climateology - Heat = moisture, Cold = Dry. Australia desperately needs far more rain, even if it comes from large storms etc.
There is no feedback mechanism that will begin cooling as a result of warming. The modern ice ages are a result of slow orbital changes.
spot on in this video
You're inspiring me to actually do something, I can't wait to finish highschool.
Except that… there's something that we can do (aside stop emitting CO2). We could, for instance, use climate engineering technology to make Earth cool down. It's totally possible, by the way, even with current technology. And by climate engineering here I mean: removing CO2 from atmosphere, in other words, reversing global warming.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
Agreed.
When I was a kid... the 70s, we were told that an ice age was coming. Then it was the ozone layer in the 80s. Then it was global warming in the 90s, Then Algore told us cities would be covered in ice in 20 years and Florida's coastline would be gone. Now it's climate change and the CO2 threat. I think it's overblown. Agree with you on common sense measures to clean up the environment.
we need to do all the efficiency stuff you mentioned to at least find a way to stabilize the climate. it might still increase in temperature, but if we could slow it down to give us time that would be best. We need to climate control the planet, which might help us learn how to terraform. alos, over the years ive heard numerous studies saying that if our population continues to grow it will be forced to go Vegan as Meat Production will become insanely unsustainable. might even come to a point where the science is so clear that governments will have to take control and cut people's opinions out of the process for their own good. climate control, population control, maximize efficiency, and cut down on waste.
Ice Core Samples. Been happening a long time before we came along, will happen a long time after we're gone. Technology will eventually solve the problem of carbon pollution.
With all the radiation from Fukushima going into the water, earth, and air I think climate change is the least of our worries at the moment. Totally agree with all your points.
Mine the cow farts, exercise on an elliptical that generates electricity and stores it in a battery, look up what "thermal depolymerization" is..
Yes and lets stop polluting humans directly with heavy metals, etc.
YOU SHOULD NOT DRINK THOSE ENERGY DRINKS. THEY DESTROY THE HEART AND THEY CAN HURT YOUR NERVOUS SYSTEM...You are a very intelligent young man.Your videos are great.
"MYSTERIOUS London Fog Once KILLED 12,000 People, Scientists Now Know Why". UA-cam video by Beyond Science, published on November 19th, 2016.