Panel: Climate Science: the use and abuse of consensus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- 14:00 - 15:30
Panel: Climate Science: the use and abuse of consensus
Frank Furedi, executive director, MCC Brussels
Professor Anthony O'Hear, professor of philosophy, University of Buckingham
Calum Nicholson, director, Climate Policy Institute
Professor Richard Lindzen, Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences emeritus, MIT; member, US National Academy of Science
Chair: Agnieszka Kolek, head of cultural engagement, MCC Brussels
Climate science in its contemporary form came of age in the 1970s at a time of a great cultural shift. The world’s first Earth Day in 1970 marked the spread of cultural concerns about environmentalism from the fringes of the hippy counterculture into the mainstream. The science of climate change arrived at a time when optimism about what science and technology had to offer was challenged by increasing concerns that the arrogance of human social and economic development was leading to negative environmental impacts, and even direct threats to the planet itself.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988, quickly became a forum for the exchange and assessment of an immense amount of growing scientific knowledge and understanding. Yet the IPCC also became regarded as the arbiter of what ‘the science’ tells us about what must be done, what political decisions must be taken and what policies must be enacted. It sits like Solomon over key questions of international development, sovereignty and social progress.
While there are different policy perspectives on the question of how to respond to climate change, one central message dominates the discussion. This is that ‘the science’ has issued humanity with a warning that our activities threaten our very existence, and that ‘the science’ tells us we must rein these activities in. Because the message appears to come from science, not politicians or campaigners, it becomes a fait accompli.
How then are we to make sense of the relationship between climate science and society? Has the scientific debate been politicised - whether that be in terms of underplaying or overplaying the dangers presented by climate change - and how can we protect against this danger? How much of the global warming issue is shaped by new scientific discoveries, and how much by broader cultural and political trends? How has the interaction between scientists, international institutions, governments, media and activists influenced the development of climate change policy? Most importantly, how can we best ensure a scientifically informed substantive political debate about how we should view and respond to climate change?
This panel is part of the event Climate Change: beyond the 'consensus': brussels.mcc.hu/event/climate...
I truly wish we could have these sense seekers helping to steer our society to more stable forward thinking grounds.
I feel the lunacy being pushed is used as a proxy weapon by higher echelon interests for self enrichment/power.
So, moneyed interests which would really need to maintain the status quo are doing nothing to propagandize you against the dangers of rapid climate change?
www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/whitehouse-raskin-urge-doj-to-investigate-fossil-fuel-disinformation-#:~:text=Dr.%20Supran%20concluded%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthere,on%20climate%20change%20for%20decades.%E2%80%9D
Sad but true
You have to follow the money for funding - who pays the piper calls the tune - think Bill Gates.
This is the most relevant comment of all.
And can regulators funded by an industry be trusted to regulate it?
Yes, let's follow the money, to fossil fuel industry CEOs, who make over 100 times more per year than climate scientists do. Follow it to the nearly 100 climate science-denying front groups, think tanks and websites the oil industry funds, according to investigations by Drexel University. Follow it to Rupert Murdoch, who owns over 500 media outlets worldwide, including Fox News and Sky News Australia which constantly bash climate science and renewable energy. Might that be because Murdoch also co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie energy, and sits on their board? Follow it to the over $120 million the oil industry spends each year to lobby and donate to members of Congress. Follow it to one of the world's largest marketing juggernauts, which outspends green energy 27 to 1 to get its message across to a naive public who rarely bother to fact-check. Yes, indeed, let's follow the money.
MCC is funded by Hungary's gov by a 10 percent stake in the national oil & gas company, MOL. In 2022 MOL made $652 m shareholder profit, so $65 m went to MCC. Hungary is anti-EU, and on this front, it's to be able to sell more fossil fuels, and potentially plant the seeds of good relations with russia to cause europe to go back to using more fossil fuels and therefore after the war increasing imports from russia close to original levels.
of course the eu is hypocritical as fuck, before the war in ukraine, companies had entered ukraine to start developing fossil fuel extraction infrastructure - ukraine has big reserves but not the economy to invest in infrastructure. This would've made russian gas & oil redundant to europe, so is one reason for the war starting. Europe is now looking to central asian countries. Fossil fuels both cause climate change and straight up wars.
the eu is bad because it _does not take climate change seriously_ and tries to fit in into it's agenda of growth (which in wealthy countries _only_ increases inequality, not wealth overall), no wealth-redistribution, saudi-owned agriculture and their influence causing the CAP to be nonsense, extractivist practices over poor countries (regarding everything-fossil fuels, renewable energy resources, and just comodity crap in general), sinophobia (policies targeting specifically bad chinese practices instead of _overall_ bad practices - yes china is not better but this approach is euronationalist).
$cience.
@@unitysprings3631 Wow. Really? I almost spit out my coffee. Oil industry CEOs make over 100 times what climate scientists do per year. The industry itself made $4 trillion in pure profit in 2023, according to Reuters. According to investigations by Drexel University, the industry also funds nearly 100 climate change-denial front groups, think tanks and websites, all of them working seven days a week to sow seeds of doubt about the science to a lay audience that never bothers to fact-check. They also spend $120 million per year lobbying Congress to do their bidding. Trump just told the oil industry that if they give him a billion dollars for his campaign, he'll rewrite all of Biden's regulations to their benefit. And you're impugning scientists? Wow. Just wow.
Even if you share this with a lot of journalists and newsrooms, which I do, it will never come out in the state-controlled media.
I stopped doing that 2 years ago because of the answers of those journalists during covid even though I was speaking with them since the last 30 years! MSM became sold and paid and they are no longer looking for truth.
You are correct, the main stream media e.g. BBC in the UK, will not discuss. That alone tells me something about the truth of all this, and I speak as a scientist.
The press has lost all its reason for existence. It is no longer protecting the public from political outreach but represents the political outreach of those in power and therefore are just puppets whose job it is to enslave the people and silence the opposition.
@@richard1342 The BBC carefully fact-checks and vets their experts, which is why you won't often see BS artists or oil industry shills spewing misinformation on their programs.
The organization that made this video - MCC Brussels, is tied to the political machinery of Hungary and Viktor Orban. So maybe you're crying about the wrong "state-controlled" media.
Lindzen is correct as described by the Frenchman’s comment - “con”-“census”.
Lindzen : our (IPCC panel) instruction from the UN was ……..
Look no further than the published UN objectives …..
The politicians/Corporate power telling the scientists what to study...what to say...YES THIS IS IT !
The 'Jack Bauer' method of thinking every episode we face exetential crisis!
Too many invested in climate change.
Absolutely, BP, Shell, Exxon etc
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR AND YOU CAN ONLY GET A GRANT TO "PROVE" CLIMATE CRISIS
SO THAT IS ALWAYS THE RESULT OF LOW LEVEL 8TH GRADE EXPERIMENTS THAT VIOLATE ALMOST EVERY RULE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY AND BASIC SCIENCE AND EVEN WORSE COMMON SENSE
Well it was B.P that came up with the term carbon footprint as a marketing strategy.
Climate change is a political policy a business model.
Lindzen is a titan of climate. He should win two Nobels for his amazing work
His "Iris Effect" is totally-failed science. He hung his hat on that rubbish.
@@grindupBaker His "hypothesis" is not "failed science", it is a weigh station on the road to more complete truth.
He is a clown with respect to AGCC and that is not debatable with any climate facts
@@dougcard5241 If Lindzen is a "clown" what does that make you?
@@steve.schatz A non fantasy pusher
What a mighty man frank is may god bless him.
This was a very interesting and important discussion. Thank you..
lol
There's a stark difference between healthy scientific skepticism of what other scientists have concluded based on the data they reviewed and scientific debunking, A skeptic who questions established science but leaves their mind open to changing their opinion based on their review of the data plays an important role in the scientific method of drawing conclusions. A debunker has no interest in keeping an open mind and instead works to debase and debunk any conclusions by other scientists to fit their own beliefs, no matter what the data indicates. That's not how the scientific method works. A debunker is not a scientist. They are someone who works to defend their belief system with no regard to contradictory data.
The second speaker said something like this : for several centuries Isaak Newton paradigm function nicely; then came Einstein who showed that Newton was WRONG !!!! Just like that WRONG. Mr second speaker, if we put aside his theologian speculations, Newton was not wrong about anything in science. When A. Einstein was creating his space - time paradigm, he was firmly standing on the Isak Newton shoulders, his theory of gravitation, and he most important his lows of mechanics . New paradigm was needed to study birth of stars, galaxies and the most remote parts of the Universe, while Newton paradigm functioned perfectly when studying close celestial object. To the people who sent first spaceships around and on the Moon, Newton lows were quite satisfactory.
Professor of Philosophy. More like Professor of Bologna.
That's if you believe that they went to the moon and back in a tin can.great movie production
Agreed. And of course Einstein is ‘wrong’ too. It never stops. Any theory thay serves is right.
Thank you for that. Nice to hear a civilised discussion without juvenile fanatics shouting everybody down; won't hear any of this on the mainstream media for morons: "We owe most of what we know, not to those who have agreed but to those who have differed." Charles Caleb Colton.
Mick the Hick 😊
"Mainstream media for morons?" You mean the media outlets that tell it straight, just as the scientists present it to them, rather than Murdoch media (Fox News, Sky News Australia, Wall Street Journal, NY Post and many more) who deny, deny, deny the science and bash renewable energy simply because owner Rupert Murdoch also co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy and sits on their board?
If only the politicians were not like sheep and just blend in and follow the narrative. You would think that with the multi billions of dollars per country required to push to achieve the desired results, someone would actually question it. Also for countries like UK who are spending billions to try and lower a figure of around 1% emissions would say, ok, we will hold back until countries like China, Africa, India, Russia get down to around a certain value, then we will see how effective the reduction of CO2 emissions actually are.
It seems to me that politicians, on the whole, tend to be behind the curve, reactive rather than proactive
Once the true costs are understood by those who will pay the bills maybe there will be a little more room for scepticism and more debate about reducing crippling economic damage
I wondered where the intelligent answers to the Just Stop Oil mobs were. I found them here, thank you
The sheep Lindzen been taking money off Peabody energy for years. Google who they are. Lindzen,a smoker, defended big tobacco saying there's no link between smoking and lung cancer. Whose the f-ing sheep here.
The whole point is to generate enormous loans just to keep the broken economy going.
It’s the herd mentality. They’re afraid to step out of line.
It could be to suppress the economic development of those nations and the global South.
Here’s a simple test. Have the US government zero out all AGW supporting research and switch it to anti-AGW research. See what happens to the consensus.
even if AGW research had no funding it would still be the consensus among scientists. Co2 has risen from 325 ppm to 425 ppm in the last 50 years. Co2 is also a powerful greenhouse gas. You can prove both of these facts with simple equipment in your backyard, there's not really any anti-AGW research that could disprove these simple facts
@@superhenkable C02 is NOT a powerful greenhouse gas. It is a greenhouse gas, but a fraction of a factor than water vapor. The rise in C02 is not being doubted and the contribution from C02 is less than 20% of the rise. They would turn heel as soon as the money changed direction. I teach research methods in a Doctorate program. The consensus argument is evidence of politics, not science. If you want to scream “Not science”, use that argument. The silencing, blocking of publishing, name calling like “denier”, are also evidence that these are not scientific arguments. There are hundreds of scientists that are calling foul, but are shut out of forums and places for debate. I am seeing some debate starting at this point but in extremely small forums and good on those pro AGW scientists for even engaging since they can get their funding cut by engaging (another reason that it’s not science).
Even if AGW research had no funding, it would still be the consensus because it has become a modern religion. It is similar to how all institutions, including conservative ones, like banks, corporations, the Boy Scouts of America, churches, etc all become more liberal over time.
@@gregorymalchuk272 But not science
@@superhenkable Are you saying, that if the government withheld the grants all those scientists would still support current policies? The problem is not that CO2 and temperature have risen. We know that. The problem is to prove the causality and justify the policies.
Proud to have been there and to pose a question (around 53:00)
💯
I thoroughly enjoyed sitting for the duration just to listen. Thank you all.👍👍🇨🇦
Anyone making the quite ridiculous claim that it's only CO2 due to human activity that accumulates in the atmosphere year on year has to come up with irrefutable proof, which as yet, no-one has. Let's run some numbers, shall we? We are told that CO2 is currently around 420 parts per million, (google it) increased, they tell us, from 280 ppm in 1850. That's a difference of 140 ppm, or in terms more readily understood by the layman, the composition of the atmosphere has changed by 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) in the last 170 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE. And despite claims to the contrary, even that amount is not entirely due to human activity. Studies show that our contribution is around 4% of that increase, so 4% of 14 thousandths of 1%. I know most won't believe that, so in the interests of not starting a futile argument, let's accept that it's all our "fault". An article can be found on NASA's website that reports that their satellites have detected that the planet has "greened" by about 18% since the turn of the century, equivalent to twice the area of the continental USA. Remember, ALL life is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. All that extra flora is supporting extra fauna. Put simply, more trees can hold more monkeys. All that extra growth has mass, and it easily outstrips the mass of CO2 that we have "added" to the atmosphere. So where has the extra come from? Understand that we are midgets in the carbon cycle. Nature circulates more CO2 in a few days than our annual contribution, rendering our "emissions" into background noise. Do you really think that a variable trace gas can be calculated to the precision of less than one part per million (average) per year? Buy yourself a CO2 meter, you can get one for about £10 ($15) on ebay. It won't be a precise scientific instrument, but it's good enough for government work. You will find that levels can fluctuate by more than 140 ppm in a couple of hours, sooner if the wind changes. Anyone that thinks the IPCC can pick out the "human fingerprint" from all the variable sources and sinks is delusional.
While everyone knows by now that CO2 is plant food, the warming that accompanies it frequently hurts plants, by increasing heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and wildfires. With just a few days of temperatures above 75F, lettuce, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage all BOLT and stop developing. Above 95F and tomatoes and cucumbers drop their flowers and cease production. Blueberries become necrotic and rot. Wheat and rice yields plummet. At 104 degrees photosynthesis breaks down.
While CO2 can make staple crops more lush, it does so by increasing sugar content and by decreasing zinc, iron and protein content, nutrients important to human nutrition. This isn't nearly as simple as fossil. fuel industry propaganda would have us believe.
The climate has been extremely stable for hundreds of thousands years ok the only thing that has changed is the amount of co2 in the atmosphere in the last 200 years! Ice cores tell us that the last time the earth was at 500 ppm that the ice was nearly gone! We are almost at 430 ppm now and are seeing rapid melt, it seems pretty obvious what’s is happening!
@@Muddslinger0415 None of which is true. You really should stop reading the guardian, it will rot your brain. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "stable climate". Ever heard of ice ages?
ua-cam.com/video/vZtzrmb5RnE/v-deo.html
Extremely stable for 100s of thousands of years? 12k years ago there was a mile high sheet of ice covering the great lakes.
I guess you've changed the definition of stable.
@@Muddslinger0415 How do you know there is "rapid melt" Have you been anywhere to see it ?? Don't believe a word the government tells you, remember covid !!!!!
Regarding the earthquake comments, in Chile, we experienced a very strong and long (2 minutes) magnitude 8.3-8.4 Mw earthquake. Despite its intensity, the city managed to withstand it without any major disruptions. There were only a few incidents of falling building ornamentations, and the electricity supply was quickly restored within a day. Unfortunately, there were approximately 15 deaths, mainly in old adobe homes located inland, but it was a surprisingly low toll all things considered (there was a small Tsunami after the earthquake too).
Chile (unlike the Inca concepts presented by Calum Nicholson) constructs buildings based on modern engineering design and construction techniques. This approach ensures a higher level of safety and resilience. It highlights the importance of understanding the geographical location and vulnerabilities of where you live, learning from past mistakes, and taking appropriate action.
Another crucial aspect is accountability, which helps prevent corruption. In Chile, if a building collapses due to non-compliance with construction standards, civil engineers and constructors are held responsible and may face legal consequences, including imprisonment.
Wow, Frank Furudi towered over all of them when he spoke. It is my first time listening to any of them and he blew me away.
“Is there more to life than the avoidance of death.” Great phrase. We are so concerned about the one certainty that we do have! 😮
Once you find that you are falling into the spiral of Malthusian thought 💭 ….. it is time for some skepticism. 🧐
Engaging Discussion 👍
Consensus is just another con
It is The Con. The Durkheimian effect.
So in other words you have no data to refute the consensus position. Got it.
There’s also a ‘con’ in economics and that’s the one you should be concerned about. Putting the economy before the environment is what we’ve been doing for over 200 years. Take a look at what that is doing to the planet. The only other ‘con’ is people falling for fossil fuel industry misinformation and weak global leaders refusing to act on the overwhelming evidence.
@@AGWUK prioritising human prosperity is a rather logical approach, not?
The existential anthropogenic global warming threat theory is rather thin when one looks at historic atmospheric CO2 and Temperature trends.
The noise around climate change is a strategy to defend the consensus theory.
@@JohanThiart Addressing the threats of climate change is about human prosperity. Do you really think our prosperity has nothing to do with the state of the planet and its climate system? If so, you need urgently to do some work on your lack of understanding and awareness.
Why has youtube killed the sound. Is it that they don't like hearing new information
sound is there, sometimes the problem is the user..
Hello Houston, seems we have a problem at your end
I wonder what kind of reaction from the panel if Dr. Ian McGilchrist were to speak regarding the left and the right hemisphere of the brain, and how much effect it would have on our understanding of human behaviour in regard to Climate
I can't remember a video that was ao thought provoking. Bravo, bravo, and thank you.
No one mention weather engineering. Weather has been manipulated for decades
Cloud seeding?😊
True... And how successful have humans been when they try and be mother nature? Like...Bill Gates dangerous idea of blocking the sun! Absolute madness!
Maybe because it is total BS🤔
They are spraying us now in the UK. That is why we had no Summer until now.and by now I mean the last two days, near the end of June.
@@user-cc2tx7uw2s even now, if you want to see clear sky you need to be up early. Don’t decide what to wear till later in the morning. I was questioning for years why we get sunny mornings & evenings, but cloudy all day. Obviously, I didn’t look up. Although it’s warm now, still cloudy during the day. It’s been going on for many years.
One thing that has already shown itself as an environmental disaster, is the rush into the mass manufacture of electrical vehicles. It has now proven itself to be a failure of some magnitude on many levels. They are not living up to the many promises made, including lack of energy and waste of time if you are lucky enough to have the availability of a charger.
I think the EV cars are fast , the acceleration is fantastic, but the cost to the planet from extracting all the materials used in the process of making and producing the batteries is terrible, also the rare earth metals used for the batteries are extracted using very young slave labour, who get terrible illnesses by digging these metals out of the ground by hand tools, and recycling the batteries are a nightmare!!! Fires are common in the recycling industry, so much so they are finding it increasingly difficult to get insurance! With out which they cannot operate.
Skipped ahead to 23:10 and the discussion is a criticism of Protestantism. Hm, when do you get to the science?
The panelist that said he sees a major supporter/fear monger is from Protestant religion, is possibly correct, BUT the group(s) he notices are almost all from the liberal or extremely liberal side and not from the conservative side of religion. Those same people are very politically involved, so I think what he is seeing IS the political side of these people/groups. Absolutely zero of my friends who are conservative believe any of the crisis agenda.
💯💯💯💯
The panel should have been given the opportunity to answer each question at the time it was asked rather than waiting to give a response to the question after several questions had been asked.
I have to say that I'm not convinced by any of the arguments I've seen so far by the "skeptics", albeit I have not dedicated enough time to make up my mind conclusively. The mania I see in our society and the cancel-culture for the ones not sharing the "correct" position is a real problem that needs to stop. Science is so important that it cannot be allowed to become politicised.
It's always been politicised. What the public should always do is view findings with scepticism. Eg a drug trial summary should be viewed in the context of which business interest funded it.
Likewise climate change studies and reports.
Would there be no change if we were not here? We are guests on earth. We clean up after ourselves but we don't adjust the thermostat. We are not affecting the climate we are effecting the environment and crisis is trying to stop the earth from Turning, breathing hot cold . 18:59 We don't build below sea level then get upset when the sea shows back up. We can not have a 19:05 drought and an excess of fresh water.
We could dam the glacier melt.,provide fresh water to the world and prevent ocean rise but we chose not to as they haven't found a profit margin. Profit exists in scarcity...
I truly like the second speaker’s comments that we are living in an era when the people are misusing many of words such as sceptic. I found people are easy to be trapped in words, such as capitalism is actually not a political system or institution but people always thought it is. Furthermore, I noted that UN, a hopeless organization, changed its definition again: from “climate change is a long-term shift in temperature and weather patterns caused mainly by the human activities…” to “Climate Change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.” However, this definition still has a problem, i.e. is the temperature part of weather indicators?
Richard Lindzen is brilliant.
Lindzen was a witness for tobacco companies decades ago, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
@@hosnimubarak8869A great chunk climate “science” comes from the same crowd who defended big tobacco and its lethal products. Coming soon from Viktor Orban’s MCC: “Smoking is good for you”.
@@richardthurston2171 Quite the reverse, many of the law firms that worked for the tobacco companies also worked for oil companies trying to obfuscate the science. You can find out more on the Drilled podcast.
The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.
@@louishennick6883 And what about all those alternative energy companies getting huge subsidies from governments based on the "climate science" and "scientists" getting their financial support and government grants? There is already much more money involved in the new "climate change industry" than in fossil fuel industry.
In the 1970s the expert concern was of global cooling. Oops.
Of the 1.5 degree or so temperature increase 1880-2020, the major part was in 1880-1940 when carbon emissions were a fraction
of what they have been 1940-2020.
Temperature was flat 1998-2013 when carbon emissions were moving rapidly upwards.
4X as many die each year from extreme cold as extreme heat.
Why is it a disaster if the huge cold areas of the world get a tiny bit warmer?
What is the ideal global temperature?
Regardless of past temperature increases, they have never been a predictor of future increases. We have no ability to predict future temperature.
No consensus of climate scientists warned of global cooling in 1970. A fraction of outliers? Yes. Crackpots? Yes. But the mainstream? Absolutely not. The mainstream were warning about global warming, not cooling, testified by the dominance of global warming papers in the science journals of the day. See MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Sept 2008, pp. 1325-1337 and put this internet folk tale to bed once and for all.
The concern about COOLING arose from the massive increase in pollution produced by World War II and its reconstruction and baby boom that followed. Sulfate aerosols from combusted coal actually dimmed the sun during this period, which lowered global temperature slightly. (Which accounts for your second point.) The concern among a handful of scientists was that if we continued to pollute at such a torrid pace, the world would continue to cool.
However, passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 changed everything. That landmark legislation did wonders to clear the air by the end of the decade, which in turn allowed the sun to shine through at full strength again and for CO2 to resume its roll as the dominant pollutant, just as scientists warned that it would.
Temperature wasn't "flat" from 1998-2013. You merely started your observation in 1998, the year of a massive El Nino, which spiked temperatures. You should have also mentioned the low solar activity and high volcanic activity during this period, both of which slowed the warming trend.
More people die from cold than heat but only if you leave out the thousands and sometimes millions who die from heat-driven droughts, which are increasing in duration and intensity due to climate change.
"Why is it a disaster if the huge cold areas of the world get a little bit warmer?"
1. Because as one area of the world warms another area becomes increasingly unlivable. Last summer Phoenix, Arizona suffered through 31 straight days of temperatures above 110 degrees. Many crops will not grow at these temperatures (photosynthesis breaks down at 104 degrees) and many seeds won't even germinate.
In 2015, the Amazon suffered a record drought that killed an estimated 2.5 billion plants and trees. It was supposed to be a once-in-a-thousand-year event, yet just 8 years later it happened again, only far worse, killing even more plants and trees and scorching 26 million acres with out-of-control wildfires. The Amazon, by the way, produces a substantial supply of our oxygen. Normally, rain forest do not burn.
Crop losses due to drought have tripled across Europe in the last fifty years, incidentally.
2. Sea level has risen four inches since 1993, according to NASA, and its rate of rise has doubled. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. In January, Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Louisiana has lost 8800 acres of land to inundation in its Breton Sound area. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads. The City Dock neighborhood of Annapolis is closing its streets and businesses 60 times a year now, due to high tide flooding.
The problem has grown so acute that New York and Louisiana now have a combined $100 billion in new flod mitigation projects in the works.
3. Meanwhile heatwaves have tripled since 1960, according to the EPA, marine heatwaves have more than doubled, according to the University of Bern; hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA; and exteme precipitation events are up all over the world.
"In the 1970s the expert concern was of global cooling. " - nope.
The major part was not in 1880 till 1940, but 0.4°C which still is a lot. Unless the temperatrures are homogenized or tempered with. I think it is the most obvious argument and i wish more would think about this warming before emissions. Usally i get an answer like "Well back then it was natural and by today we know it is us". Kudos
@@TheDanEdwards Yes. It wass on the cover of the "Times" and Leonard Nimoy was warning of the coming cold in documenteries. 1979 had the largest ice extend
@@nyoodmono4681 Leonard Nimoy was a consensus of mainstream climate scientists? You're conflating sensationalist journalism with peer-reviewed, consensus science. Not remotely the same.
Please provide reference for the Marsha Mc Nutt policy of not publishing climate skeptic papers. 1:11:00 (Lindzen).
Very good ,
People and other animals have been moving north in great numbers.
It's a very complex matter; with many unsolved questions until now in my opinion. Is climate warmer now than 50 years ago? Yes it is. Is this warming man driven? Through the rise of CO2 in the air, but many look at solar activity and cycles. In which %, CO2 of human origin may cause a climatic change? Here the scientific responses differ a lot. The problem is that scientists - not ordinary people - think differently about this. Are they corrupt? And who of them? There are conflicts of interest?
Few certain answers to so many questions. At this point I think it is better to doubt, and doubt again, about almost anything. We need more data and more open and transparent discussion among scientists and experts, without any ban or prejudice. Don't forget what just happened with the virus' crisis!
The consensus that human activity is driving today's climate change is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the field by Cornell University. Numerous lines of evidence point definitively at us, not nature. The sun's irradiance, for example, has weakened over the past 4 decades, according to NASA and has nothing to do with today's warming trend.
Keep in mind that the fossil fuel industry secretly paid scientist Willie Soon $1.2 million to spread his ridiculed "the-sun-did-it" theories around the internet. Many of the 0.1% of scientific dissenters, in fact, have taken money either directly or indirectly from the oil industry. (William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore).
When 99 bridge engineers warn us not to cross a rickety bridge for fear of collapse, we'd be fools not to question the one contrarian who urges us across, especially when he has a toll to collect from us on the other side.
"but many look at solar activity and cycles". S.B. "but many liars, Trolls & half wits look at solar activity and cycles". There I do minor grammatical corrections like that. No charge.
Just remember Scientists are like Jukeboxes, Put your money in, and they will sing any song you want ! As for it being warmer now , dream on ! 1930’s up to 1940 in America was red hot ! Look up old newspapers reports etc , 118 degrees for most of the summer! I remember in 1976 7 or 8 weeks of reality hot weather, every one had all their windows open trying to catch a bit of wind ! This was in the UK , in Bath , Somerset. We have had the odd week or 2 maximum when it’s been hot since , but nothing like 1976 !
Few people are more effective speakers than writers. Babble is the norm. Many are hopeless at both.
If he was here now, Galileo Galilei would have something to say about the ‘consensus of science’ and ‘the science’……
No consensus of scientists refuted Galileo. The Catholic Church did. Not even remotely the same, and not even remotely the equivalent of the ELEVEN separate studies that confirm today's scientific consensus of PhD-level, publishing climate scientists from around the world and the 80 academies of science that publicly endorse the consensus position.
Excellent!
Saying that Newton was "wrong" is a gross oversimplification. The path the Voyager probes took around the solar system was calculated with Newtonian physics. Einstein added to Newton's work, he didn't prove it wrong. Trust a Philosophy professor to be as disingenuous as possible.
"...Einstein added to Newton's work, he didn't prove it wrong...."
Newton's physics is encompassed by Einstein's theories. At the deepest level, Newton was wrong, as can be shown by Newtonian physics' inabilitty to explain Mercury's creeping orbit.
Newton's effect on the world of physics, optics and mathematics (calculus) has no equal, for the average human. Many of the advances in physics and engineering could not have transpired without his seminal work, but we should remember that Newton also had some nutty ideas, like Alchemy. Also, he was strangely religious. On his death bed, he pronounced that his crowning glory and greatest achievement was dying a virgin!
For even Newton himself admitted that his calculations of the apse of the moon in this Theory of The Moon could be about twice as swift (a factor of 2); and it still ended up being much smaller than the angular size of our night-sky moon.
Other failed consensuses: flat earth, sun orbits earth, earth has a dome, COVID-19 is natural, WEF cares about humanity, and on and on. Need I say more?
To equate uneducated Iron Age people from 2000 years ago with thousands of formally trained PhD-level scientists and their scientific institutions of today is itself a form of ignorance.
Excellent discussion at a real scientific level, i.e. the pursuit of truth.
Excellent, erudite panel.
Very gentlemanly discussion, but we need to be more forthright. This is an evil climate cult we are dealing with.
Evil climate cult? So it's evil to promote scientific literacy now?
why is no one talking about climate change and how to stop it??
Thses clowns prefer targeting an audience that is scientifically illiterate, and only engage in insipid debate at best.
Very good a real debate. Well done everybody. The film that was mentioned is still available and there is a follow up. Climate the Movie. On UA-cam now.
"Climate: the Movie" has been debunked from beginning to end by Skeptical Science. See 'CLIMATE: THE MOVIE: A HOT MESS OF COLD MYTHS"
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481does their funding rely on the narrative?
@@WeighedWilson More swill from fossil fuel industry propagandists. Where are your critical thinking skills?
@@WeighedWilson Yes all of the funding of your people relies on the narrative like you pointed out. The fossil fuel industry ain't short of a Bob or two.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 That is a complete lie ! It has not been de-bunked at all, as not one Scientist has come forward to refute or challenge any of the FACTS stated in this 2024 Movie by Martin Durkin , if you say that provide Names and status and a link to where they were interviewed stating there Scientific arguments, to what the film portrayed.
We should not impoverish people today for an theoretical future. But we shouldn't improvish the people in the future for gains today. There have to be balance in wealth now and in the future
Michael Crichton, author of State of Fear.
Everyone should read it, it's a great book and will open your eyes.
Seriously? State of Fear is a NOVEL. It's FICTION. Written by a medical doctor, not a climate scientist. The book was torn to shreds by fact-checkers. See CRICHTON THRILLER STATE OF FEAR, a point by point take-down of the misinformation in the book by the Union of Concerned Scientists. I personally love Crichton's books, but I never take his "science" as Gospel. Nor should you. For climate science, read the scientific literature of qualified, PhD-level climate scientists who work in the field, not novelists who sensationalize for purposes of publicity and buzz.
Anyone noticing the incessant aerial spraying? We’ve had no summer here in Ireland.
Saying it like it is. Co right
Mond gravity uses Newtonian gravity and Einsteins gravity and is the current leading theory of gravity.
We currently use Newtonian gravity for spacecraft to navigate our solar system
There is only one consensus people really need to get down with.
And that is despite the fact that in the intrim, we have had a hundred years of model manipulation, the micro computer, the super computer, the quantum computer and even AI.
That consensus is a simple one.. The formula created by Svante in 1856 and the formula as revised in Nov 2023 by James Hansen are in agreement on climate forcings to a sufficient degree that if we take Hansens forcings as literal gospel even to the point of ignoring IPCC, we are more likely to both survive and thrive as a species over ANY other point of view. full stop, period.
But you can't deny that globally, the years 2023, 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2021, 2018, 2014, 2010 2013, are the hottest since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, right?
@@hosnimubarak8869 My position is that the GHG forcings have set the thermostat to +10c, we are warming at a rate of about 11 Hiroshima bombs per second with a current doubling rate of 14 years.
The amoc is also collapsing.
So regardless of the minutia of what year was warmer than what and other such nuances that mean very little at all on their own because it is a PLANET and as such can apply all sorts of feedbacks and counter feedbacks we would have no chance of truly mapping at real time as the collapse happens.
sure we have models that can mimic the flow of fluids and everything, but we have also shown the slightest innacuracy and models mean diddly squat.
Anyone that claims to know every detail is flat out lying, we are still inventing the technology to study these things as we go in real time and every year brings new nuance.
But the general trend and outcome is far more predictable than the exact path we take to get there.
A frozen north and a boiling equator.
I personally believe that anyone living at the equator should already be planning a live changing evacuation to higher or lower latitudes.
No mate , I lived through the 70s that were much much hotter !@@hosnimubarak8869
@@hosnimubarak8869 What about the 1930s?
@@elendil504
The 1930's was a very hot time on the American plains.
You said nothing
The moderator tries to stymie he discussion. Who chose her? Why?
It is not the human firing the gun who kills; it is the bullet that hits. Paraphrasing the first speaker. What a muddling speaker.
I won’t take any climate predictions seriously until they can consistently forecast local weather 3 days in advance..
"I won’t take any climate predictions seriously until they can consistently forecast local weather 3 days in advance.." - that's like saying you don't believe water (at 1atm) boils at 100C because no one can predict for you the exact path of a water molecule in the pan.
Climate and weather are two different things. Weather is like your moods, changing constantly and nearly impossible to predict into the future. Climate ismore like your temperament, stable over years and decades and much easier to predict.
You went on Channel 4!!! 😧The loudspeaker for Oceania. Mick the Hick.
It's called "ask a question for a reason" not make a statement to massage your ego.
Perhaps before declairing a crisis, first define what negligible temperature is and what natural variation from century to century is to be expected.
What is "negligible temperature?" We declare crisis when we see temperatures high enough to melt the icecaps and raise sea levels four inches since 1993, with a doubling of its rate since then. Ours is not a "natural variation."
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 The temperature increase is in the average temperature. In urban areas the overnight minimum is exaggerated by the UHI effect. 1-13C going to 3-13C increases the average by 1C and that is seized on by the media and others in high places, who irresponsibly claim it as evidence of "global boiling". Glacial melt has been ongoing for centuries and is not a new phenomenon. Sea level rise is not uniform. Canadian Bay as seen in the film "On the Beach" shows no sea level rise in 65 years. Across the world record maximum temperatures go back 50-170 years when CO2 was 290ppm. It's gone up to 420 since then without change in those record maximums. The case against CO2 gets weaker and weaker.
@@yasi4877 The UHI effect conspiracy has been peddled by pseudoscientific quack Anthony Watts (Wattsupwiththat) for years. That effect is ALWAYS accounted for. Watts was robustly debunked years ago, so you're a bit late to the game.
Tap into your critical thinking skills for a moment. Why would we see the same warming trend hundreds of miles from any form of civilization? Why would we see it over the middle of the ocean? Why would we see it 700 meters BENEATH the ocean surface? Why would we see it in the Arctic, thousands of miles from civilization? The Arctic, in fact, is warming THREE TIMES FASTER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD. There is no urban heat island effect there. You've simply been bamboozled by a known internet charlatan.
Glacial melt has NOT been going on for centuries. There was no glacial melt in the time leading up to the Industrial Revolution. In some parts of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period, yes. Around the world? No.
You're also being misled by pseudoscientists reporting on RELATIVE sea level rise, which varies according to such factors as glacial rebound, subsidence, tectonic uplift, offshore winds, the status of El Nino and La Nina, and so on. ABSOLUTE sea level, by contrast, isn't measured near the shore, it's measured from the middle of the ocean by satellite altimeters. That measurement shows a four inch rise since 1993, with a doubling of its rate of rise, according to NASA.
In January of this year Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Maine is UPLIFTING LAND from glacial rebound and is the last state on the eastern seaboard we'd expect to see such a disaster. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% since the year 2000. Louisiana, in fact, has already lost over 8800 acres of land to permanent inundation in its Lower Breton sound area, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's why they have a new $50 billion flood mitigation project in the works. So does New York, with the borough of Queens already flooding on a regular basis. One neighborhod in Annapolis is flooding out 60 times a year, forcing its streets and businesses to close. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads by two feet. Odisha State in India, meanwhile, reports that it has lost 16 coastal villages to inundation over the last several years. This isn't in someone's imagination.
According to Marine Science Australia, sea level rise along the Australian coast, as measured by both satellite and tide gauges, is as follows:
1900 to 2011 sea level trend = 1.2 mm/year
1966 to 2011 sea level trend = 1.7 mm/year
1993 to 2011 sea level trend = 4.6 mm/year
Beware the lies of omission and cherry-picked data the denier blogosphere employ to fool the unschooled.
Primary driver of politicians is power, money and wealth. They have an interest in being re-elected but beyond that, they have no interest in you.
Never mistake then trying to take you on their journey for being remotely interested in you. They just don't care.
The main issue in Europe is cost of living. Spot on. I venture to add that it is underlain by property affordability, together with energy affordability, these drives the cost of everything. Once the ratio between disposable income and property/energy affordability exceeds a certain value, the very fabric of society is disrupted. Anthropogenic climate change is just a red herring.
Did you notice how Calum's chair got closer and closer to Agnieszka's chair in the end touching .? Must be a climate thing .
Total unadulterated C R A P at 10:50 to 11:15
Thank you for rational talking. It’s all deliberate. Not real
Just like when the cough, when the liars start going to far, brave professionals stand up and shut it down. Much to them all!
Who exactly are the liars? The 99.9% of publishing climate scientists who form the consensus on climate change? Or people like Richard Lindzen, who has taken money from OPEC, western Fuels and Peabody Energy?
It is about power..for the WHO / UN
How pathetic these rationist are, even the moderator carries an dictorial „Achtung Stufe!“ “.
So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept:
Units
0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere
0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface
1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units
1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units
0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space
1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere
0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes
x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface
0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space
===== All the above repeated and reordered unaltered
Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget
0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere
1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units
1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units
0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space
1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere
0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes
x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface
Surface energy (as power) Budget
0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface
1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere
0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes
x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface
0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space
--------------
LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths
Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns on solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat").
--------------
So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force).
------
If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
Where are professor Linzens time to talk?
Russel Brand or many others would do better at explaining this. The discussion was all over the place. But I'm happy for the efforts they made. Do I need to make all the sacrifices I'm making because of Government dictats on climate change or are the Government completely wrong and taking up much of my life for no good reason.
And money, it's all about the money !!!
the newton comparison is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.
Right after the apple hit Sir Isaac Newton on the head a friend shook him awake and Sir I shouted "Light isn't bendy !" Historical fact. Scared the crap out of his pals.
Science without questioning is religion! There must be questioning and argument!
Those who think there is no questions in climate change are not informed. Those who think climate change are not real nor caused by human activities are religious.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s good or bad.
@@jenaidetempslaverteyere3562 Those who take on faith the malevolence of climate change are practicing religion. And the naturalist logical fallacy.
Some people love money more than be truthful.
2.0 sofisticated forms of CC denial
The second speaker was disappointing
The other speakers were so much more eloquent and professional with their blatant lies.
Earth quakes can no way be used in climate alarmism.
Well, the north pole is still iced up in the summer, and the Maldives still exist contrary to what we taught
You weren't taught that the north pole would be melted or that the Maldives would be completely underwater now, unless you had some really bad teachers who listened to crackpots instead of a consensus of mainstream climate scientists. No sober climate scientists ever predicted that the north polar ice cap would be completely gone now nor that Maldives would be underwater today.
Unteresting positions of the individual panelists.
Only nnoying thing was the uncoordinated and disruptive influence of the female host.
What we can say is that the lost of spirituality when we turned our back to the religion had created a vacuum which has been filled with the so call ecology. Mainly in catholic religion we were by being born guilty of the original sin and now we are still guilty for the so called planet destruction wich is totally false. Man are builders not destroyer in general. The earth will survive us so let’s helping each other first before protecting the new God named Gaïa.
Great point, I often make it myself!
We can also pontificate that an elitist culture that exists in the higher echelons of power - pushing these different mechanisms of guilt, shaming and fear amongst the public to use as a means of control/persuasion.
The question is why?
Is it to adapt to changing technological advancements that could help mankind to flourish usurping those elitist groups from their hegemonic positions?
Ecology is the new religion??
It can't hold a candle to consumerism for $$ impact.
Nonsense. Regrettably, religion is alive and well. And the vacuum you describe as being filled by “ecology” is actually filled by the religion of market fundamentalism.
@@richardthurston2171 you are an atheist for sure! To you believing in a super power who created all is impossible right? So you believe that everything happened by chance ( le hasard in French). Your belief is that the ‘´hasard ‘’ created everything! Because, YES you do have a belief too my friend! You cannot prove it without a doubt as well as the others who believe in a super power (name it like you will).
Now I won’t say that your belief is nonsense because it’s different than mine. I will rather try to explain to you the differences between Spiritual and Religion.
@@jean-marclamothe8859 Agnostic. I’m fairly clear on the difference between spirituality and religion. But thanks.
There is no one willing to debate these people, because no one can. How is it possible that the planet is about to perish in flames and yet we can not sit at a table and talk about it? Hysterical from the get go.
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed. Search for this, "Cornell Chronicle, More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change".
There is nothing to debate.
I can't think of anything Christian (or Protestant) about climate alarmism.
The real question for me which I've never seen answered by the CC industry is (a) where is the evidence that mankind can control the climate? (b) since climate has always changed, what are the consequences of seeking to prevent it?
So many examples of unintended consequences
Great discussion but a serious discussion on climate science which ignores the one criminally irresponsible anthropocetric form of man made interference with the biosphere? Really? Geoengineering the weather for almost seventy years is very real indeed and anyone who cares to observe this in its most blatant form should look up from their phone screen once in a while to observe the lattice of vapour trails crisscrossing the skies on a regular basis supposedly to block sunlight by reflecting it upwards. The consequences can be catastrophic as the recent flooding in Dubai would indicate following weekly 'cloud seeding' gone wrong.
Interesting g comment on tg5e Dubai flooding - question could you provide the link to the evidence on cloud seeding producing the high levels of rainfall and flooding. Thx
It's space aliens - intergalactic reptilian warp speed communist zombie space aliens geoengineering your brain with pot gummies from Northern Andromeda!
Geoengineering is great as long as we get to keep burning fuel to keep increasing our quality of life and lifespan.
@@gregorymalchuk272😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤡
Bollox. Sorry but cloud seeding requires very specialised equipment and is not being carried out by commercial aircraft. You lack the very basic knowledge of how vapour trails are formed.
Yes, cloud seeding has been done experimentally (particularly in china) but it's not being done globally by commercial aircraft.
Provide the actual proof to your claim.
Problem: the ethics v science, where certain axioms are derived by emotional reasoning!
11.38min a range of 3C for possible warning is about 1% of our current earth temp at around 290kelvin, another perspective...
Earth's average temperarure has varied by 33 degrees over the last 540 million years, not varied by 290 degrees. Fraser River salmon die off if the river warms by 1.0 degrees, when it was 0.5 degrees above today there was 1,700 to 2,500 trillion tonnes less ice than now (sea level 20 to 30 feet higher) and thousands of things like that.
It would be interesting to hear Johan Rockström in this discussion
Why what he knows is not worth knowing.
A Dunning Kruger idiot here. If u think u have evidence then publish in peer reviewed journals. I get a strong vibe that u never went to university
Science is progressive, never ending and we learn from it all the time. So today's mantra is tomorrow's idiocy!!
Science is self-correcting and therefore always improving. A consensus of belief doesn't usually end up in idiocy. If that was the case, none of our technology would work.
@sueshrubsole3712 == IRRELEVANT claptrap
It can becomes regressive very fast. Just look around you🫣
This panel messed up the whole climate issue .Clearly their own " interpretation" does not let them see what it is about .
The fundamental argument is our relation to nature and our place in it .The panel did not mention once the enormous destruction of biodiversity,whole ecosystems and displacement of communities or their dissapearance. The science ( statistical data / methods) is seriously clear .It is in the hands of our politicians ( whom we vote for ) to mitigate ,reduce or steer the outcome .It is time to implement measures .And yes ...Green policies do work .Saving our oceans do work .And voting for the right ideas do work .
What an obnoxious moderator. She interrupts when it becomes interesting....
"I loathe the expression 'the' science" 07.35.
Calum is extremely difficult to hear (especially because he also speaks very fast) !
It's so interesting that my comment on who funds MCC got deleted!
I guess some things just shouldn't be subject to the tyrannies of critical thinking 😊
William Happerr…
I'm a Canadian citizen, born and raised. I think it's New Word Order and a political strategy. Following the money is the best place to start. Think, Steven Guilbeault and investment in China for just one example.
Follow the money. Absolutely right, Deborah. The fossil fuel industry made over $4 trillion in profit last year, and their CEOs made over 100 times what climate scientists did. The industry spends over $100 million per year lobbying Congress and backing pro-oil candidates and, according to investiigations by Drexel University have funded nearly 100 climate change-denying front groups, think tanks and websites, all of which spread climate misinformation seven days a week.
It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. Anonymous
Earthquakes also swallow living things into the ground, cause tsunamis and more than just know buildings down.
Ah, "Human impact."
So, it isn't COW FARTS!
Right now we live in an incredibly stable climate period. Less than 1mm per year rising and sinking measured at ports around the world for over 100 years and NO sudden change even now. 😂
Not even remotely accurate. Sea level has risen four inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has DOUBLED since then, according to NASA satellite altimeter measurements from the middle of the ocean and worldwide tide gauges along the shore. Sea level doesn't "suddenly" change. It rises slowly with the melting of the icecaps and thermal expansion.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 that sounds terrifying ... Don't worry... I can sell you a bottle of
Nullgods Patented Snake Oil
only 25c for a bottle guaranteed to remove eye scales, quackery, hysteria, vicimitus, scientism, and the eternally undetectable and unfalsifiable hobgoblin of death!
The End is Nigh...Act Now!
Extremely Limited number of Bottles and if you don't get some right now You, denier, are response for destroying our world and everyones children!
You took to long, one billion penguins are dead, it's your fault, and the price went up to $25T. 😁
Those of us that understand climate and know our history, laugh in the face of climate change lunacy!
Meaningless blather