Yup. Confirms what I've been saying all along. Wrapping Climate Change in politically polarizing language doesn't help the cause, it hurts it. Just as important: insulting language, such as "What's wrong with the brains of climate deniers?" won't help things either.
Absolutely. Name calling and censorship are the standard means of those who are weak and insecure in their positions. Meanwhile there's abundant science showing that C02 is pretty much inconsequential to climate in the incredibly minuscule amounts we're talking about, but those who believe the hype are usually ignorant of that, or else in denial that it even exists.
How to sell the energy transition to righty - you speak in their language. National security via energy security. Reduced trade deficits, keeping £/$Billions within the domestic economy, more high skilled employment, prestige, and not being beholden to dodgy oil dictatorships for your energy needs.
@@BryanTorokBiden didn't fool us. We don't even like him very much. I've noticed Trump supporters seem to be under the impression that we want to lick Biden's boots and have his babies. No. Just because you guys do that with Trump doesn't mean we do with him. You guys didn't with other Republican presidents either. We just vote for him. That's it. And, again, you guys didn't do this with your former Republican presidents either. Everyone used to be more rational. We weren't at all excited about Biden and we would drop him like a sack of potatoes if he did a tenth of what Trump has. It's just that almost anyone is better than a guy who was impeached twice, has innumerable charges, denies science, and was ultimately such a sore loser that he told his ignorant followers that the most secure election in US history was rigged, knowing they're THAT ignorant, enough to believe THAT. Then he incited an attack on the Capitol and the treasonous battle flag of the Confederates was flown inside the Capitol for the first time in US history. That didn't even happen during the Civil War. So thanks for that, Trump. Thanks for putting that mark on our American legacy. Not to mention all the, you know, deaths. Unlike almost everyone on both the left and right, I don't just talk like this about every president from the other side. I try to support my president. I tried to support Trump. But he's just uniquely evil and unqualified. Officially topped Nixon as our worst president yet. Anyone who wants to do worse is practically going to have to open fire on the public because Trump already essentially did just that through his zombie army. "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." - Donald Trump
"This suggests that climate change denial in the united states has little to do with reasoning to begin with, and it's instead strongly tied to political orientation and identity." I guess it makes sense that this isn't obvious to people who don't live here, but here in the US this has been blindingly, maddeningly obvious for decades.
I think there are some opportunities to put a dent in global CO2 that might be politically bipartisan. Moving industry into the US and powering it with natgas would be far better for emissions than skeptically regulated lignite coal plants that do most of this work currently. Jobs, industry, infrastructure and environment gains...seems like a winner.
The real unfortunate thing is that, when pushed in the right ways, political identity will likely override that reasoning. Controversies over vaccination, medical technology, intersex biology, etc. suggest there's a growing anti-intellectual camp in US politics that rejects science itself (as "woke" or something, probably).
As a long time educator in America, I have noticed that people here are very interested in what is true and only marginally interested in why it is true. The "why" question is always more subtle and nuanced than the "what" question. I think that this represents a failure of our education system. I think that this allows some people to stick to their beliefs regardless of the evidence because, in their opinion, evidence is not the standard to judge truth by. If it seems right, or even seems like that in a fair world it would be right, then they believe in it.
There is also the issue that someone will read something online or in a book and stick to that truth no matter what also. Esp if the person who said such thing is an important figure in society or at least in that persons mind. I agree with you on the why its true statement, few young people today really seek out why something is true and usually just stick to the first thing that is said is true. As a society in the USA we do not value education as much as we should and that is such a terrible disservice that we can do to the future generation.
I hope you've watched Feynman's take on why questions. And don't tell me you haven't heard of Richard Feynman - because I do not accept such statements#
One big thing to note is that not all opposition to climate change measures is because of a lack of belief in it. Several initiatives aren't proven ways to actually reduce carbon emissions because they're going after easy targets; the fact that California can limit gas lawn mowers but not private jets for example. That said, Americans are based in a culture that was borne from challenging authority. It's served us well this far and will continue to do so.
Challenging authority has no merit if that challenge consists of a simple denial of everything without any work put into it. You should earn your respect as an expert in a field before you question experts. I'm a scientist but not an expert in climate science. I can learn from climate scientists, but I really can't earnestly question them. I pick my authority and that is and should be the IPCCC
@@frankreasoning7993 could you give a reason why "scepticism is a good thing" holds true? You are missing the third possibility, namely that scepticism is neither always good nor never appropriate, but that sometimes it's just not appropriate in certain situations. Namely when an obvious way of checking is available that can heavily reduce uncertainty (albeit at the cost of an effort many climate deniers are neither willing nor possibly capable of making)8
@@beattoedtli1040 She took her thirty pieces of silver, mate, and now the Military Industrial Complex _owns_ Sabine Horsendfeeler. Notice, she will never talk about the millions of tons of ordnance exploded in Europe and the Middle-East with regard to damage to the climate. Nor will she mention the impact that tanks, humvies, helicopters, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc., could have on the environment. Right? She's a shill and and enemy of our kind. But of course, since _she_ didn't mention any of this, as far as you are concerned, CO2 generated by the military is much less harmful than the CO2 coming out of your big mouth, right? W4nker!
Wrong Wrong and Wrong. "California can limit gas lawn mowers but not private jets for example." California CAN limit private jets and has chosen NOT to do so. WHY? WHY? and WHY?
I think science communication has become too entangled with political aims in the US, and that has done serious damage to the credibility of the research.
More precisely, political and corporate players have abused science in the war over public opinion, thus eroding public trust in science. This is made possibly by an uneducated public that knows almost nothing about how science works, i.e. how scientific knowledge is gained and how academia is organized. Thus, the public is unable to even identify situations where said manipulation occurs.
The climate change hysteria is coming from the UN, a political organization chiefly concerned with expanding their power and influence. Covid, same thing, a pile of BS hype that was exposed as lies, much of which also came out of the UN. Coincidence?
it isn't just that, I don't care "the science" if the solution is give a bunch of socialists money. we have no way to spend money on the climate. because the welfare state only pays university grant recipients to raise awareness of wrongdoing. none of the money ever goes to renovating industry.
"has done serious damage to the credibility of the research." Similar outcome but I think many people are simply not interested in politically tainted or motivated research. It is known that climate research is politically motivated: "by S Cevik · 2022 · Cited by 13 - The conceptual framework for examining the relationship between climate change and income distribution is a reflection of deep structural changes" "Nov 5, 2022 - Let's say it straight out: It is impossible to seriously fight climate change without a profound redistribution of wealth, both within countries " Ottmar Edenhofer Quote: “Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth.”
@@thomasmaughan4798 Edenhofer is an economist, not a climate scientist. If you look at his entire quote what he was addressing was fossil fuel companies, and saying that regulating them de facto affects certain countries more than others since certain countries are producers of fossil fuels. I'm not sure how this is "tainting climate science" it is an observation not a recommendation. This is an economists job, to see how policies affect economies, and a result of regulating fossil fuels is that the wealth of rich oil states then moves towards poorer states. For example taxing oil and building batteries instead would take money away from Saudi Arabian oil and move it towards Indonesian nickel. As for the S Cevik quote, this is an International Monetary Fund paper. Again, not climate science, economics, and again this exact quote is a descriptive claim not a prescriptive one (although this paper may make economic recommendations later). The full quote is talking about how any response to climate change will necessarily have impacts to globalization and income inequality - just as any large monetary policy would. Both of these quotes are simply describing the economic implications of policy decisions. I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that it taints or motivates research, especially not climate research (although it may motivate or be motivated by economic research in the case of the IMF). Using these quotes to assert that the science is "tainted" is either misunderstanding the quotes themselves, or just arguing in bad faith.
I'll totally take the money and watch the climate skeptic video. No, I'm not climate change deniar. I'm a skeptic of Climate change action. For example - do even 1% climate change activist care or know about things like deforestation, desertification, declining water table etc that're not directly related to CO2 and may worsen by emission reduction measures (like deforestation to make room for solar farm)?
A problem in America is that science often becomes “political science”. That is to say, legislators will go so far as disallow questioning of the science. “The time for talk is over!” Science should always be open to questioning. Scientists often work on grants, and it is believed that they will reach the conclusions that their benefactors are seeking. They should allow science to use the scientific process.
thats not the problem because science is political, because political means the way we organize public life, don't you think that we use science to organize public life? i do. The problem is that they mix science facts with political policies.
It is not quite as simple. I recommend the book "Politics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society" by Zeynep Pamuk. She dissects the topic beautifully. She notes that research is naturally limited and has a margin of error. It is important that this uncertainty is clearly communicated and that the topics getting researched are subject to political debate and democratic decisions. Should we for example continue to pour billions into fusion research? It is highly uncertain it will ever work in practice and it is certain it will not come in time to mitigate climate change. The money could conceivably be better spent on battery technology and recycling of wind turbines and solar cells. In my opinion public money without strings attached could also lend greater credibility.
I agree about science inherently comes with uncertainty and it's incredibly important to get people to understand this. But then disagree with the rest about battery over fusion. Scientific advances should never ever be judged by what immediate practical use it has in the moment. We wouldn't have electricity if it is the case. Science should influent certain part of politic, it's impossible to separate them. However, it is important to get people to understand how science actually works and for people to know how to think critically so they can handle the information thrown at them. Back to uncertainty. It is inherent and inevitable in absolutely everything. But almost everyone out there has a warped view of this. They associate science with absolute fact and uncertainty = you don't know what you are talking about. While in reality, if somebody gives you an absolute answer on almost anything outside of maths, they are either knowingly lying to you or they are stupid
Americans deny climate change _because_ it's part of the american politics system. Politicians are using this lie to get votes. In the meantime, the average american is confused or even start to distrust sound science and observable facts. Stop manipulating your citizen's minds to use them for political gains or votes 😂
@@JC_923 "Scientific advances should never be judged by what immediate practical use it has in the moment" Of course it should - if you are allocating resources. And especially if the resources are being allocated before results are in. We may be talking past each other here. Judgment can mean different things. Only very rigid ideologues or religious types will suggest rejection of scientific results based on value judgment, but this edge case shouldn't blind us to prioritization being necessary. If we don't acknowledge prioritization up front it will happen behind the scenes steered by power brokers in an undemocratic way. Why do you think so much research is being conducted in areas like material science rather than sustainability of ecological webs or mental health? Because material science is more inherently sciency? I think not. Edit: Note that I'm _not_ arguing that only 'useful' research should be given a go-ahead. Just that we should debate what research should be prioritized and what proportion should be blue sky research. At the moment we have both too little blue sky research _and_ too little practical research useful for most people and society as a whole.
As a republican American, I have a layman's understanding of the science and fully accept the notion that climate change is real and caused by human pollution. However I do not agree to authoritative pushes for social and economic change which I do not believe will address the problem at a reasonable cost to human life or quality of life. For example, forcing everyone to use hybrid vehicles using carbon heavy manufacturing processes, or not eating meat, or subsidizing solar arrays (without improving energy storage) or any one of a vast array of idiotic ideas preferred by the left. We need to spend large sums of money on research and development and create a ton of new nuclear plants in the meantime. Anything else is a half measure or less that falls way short of solving the problem (and in fact takes money and energy away from real solution attempts) that we do to simply say we did something. To be fair, there are a lot of republicans (and I'm actually a libertarian just part of the coalition to keep my country from becoming consumed by the cancer of socialism) that are bat shit insane and are flat earth level science deniers. I have a degree in math and physics and love science more than just about anything, so I'm not like the others. These people are indeed to be mocked. However, scientists should look in the mirror for why politics have such a heavy hand to play in people's desire to listen to them - if you call sociology a science and claim it tells us we should pretend there's no such thing as male or female, and to castrate angsty teenagers - then it's not surprising no one trusts you. The social sciences (and the humanities postmodernism movement) have ruined the reputation of academia and invalidated the appeal to authority that is required to communicate with the uneducated. TLDR; republican here, all for doing things that solve the problem (massive increase to research, build a ton of nuclear power), heavily against performative nonsense that gives the state more authority and doesn't solve the actual problem. Also maybe politics would leave science if science left politics - i.e. stop calling propaganda pseudoscience science and you will be trusted more
I remember when catalytic converters where brought in to change car exhaust from carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, a good thing FOR PLANTS !! Now 30 or 40 years later we have too much carbon dioxide !! Now we must change to EV'S .
Holy smokes!! No, catalytic converters did not increase carbon dioxide. It was there all along. Catalytic converters did reduce several other things in car exhaust. These things were and still are highly toxic and carcinogenic. But thanks to catalytic converters, there's less of them in the air we all breathe. And yes, we must change to EVs, because of the carbon dioxide that comes out of ALL gasoline and diesel powered vehicles - with or without catalytic converters.
@@bark2931It's funny how some people got turned into environmentalists overnight, just because the propagandists they listen to decided that would be a good way to make EVs look bad. I didn't hear you crying those crocodile tears about cobalt miners when the cobalt was only being used for refining oil and making the special alloys used in the turbines of gas fired power plants. But yeah, that's what cobalt was used for, for decades. And still is!! And not a peep from you about any of that. Of course, your silence about that is understandable, because those propagandists you listen to never told you about it. And I suppose you're also unaware that about half the EVs being sold today have LFP type batteries, which use no cobalt. Within a few years, it's gonna be about 75% of EVs will have no cobalt. Meanwhile, every gallon of gas you will ever burn will be refined using cobalt.
Most people don't base their belief in climate change or human-caused climate change on the actual evidence. Rather, they base it on authorities. After all, most of us are not scientists, and we don't read scientific literature. We just watch science news channels or hear about "the science" in the media. Americans just happen to be very skeptical of authorities, especially when politics are involved, which they very much are when it comes to climate change.
It was reading the scientific literature back in the 1990s and that convinced me that the studies were being slanted to get more funding for more time on supercomputers. I didn't know much about historical climatology back then but what I knew was that they were picking time periods that showed global warming and ignoring times that didn't show warming. They were predicting global warming on the basis of models with a cell size of 300 km. Do you know how much difference there is in the climate 300 km away from here? It was ridiculous. Why would I believe what they say now?
Does nobody care that these climateers have been wrong about everything that they have predicted? Why is this science if it cannot predict anything? The answer is that it is not.
Ice age deniers are amazing! “ the earth has always been 70deg” yeh right??? But I’m just a geophysicist, how would I know? The earth is greening and that is good!
Sabine, have Germans noticed we seemed to be in a rough patch in our political system. We offer to the free world a leader from two candidates: one who can barely talk at times and the other who should stop talking. We are skeptical because we think information is likely politicized. I’m a chemist, right leaning with a world view that allows for the supernatural in religion, just so you can understand my biases. It find very hard to find to get to the bottom of facts that are delivered through the political system or media. For example, on climate change I regularly see weather confused with climate, so I don’t trust those sources. And we have aggressive policy proposals but no carbon tax? I have turned to a simply rule, don’t read science from free sources, esp newspapers, buy curated articles, like Science magazine, primary source research and such. I even read books again, lots of great book reviews to help. Thing is I can’t read it all, so I will amend that and maybe isten to you and some others who seem to hold up.
Only those that are loudest and spreading misinformation. Afterall its not a debate about some obscure thing, theres facts and deniers are simply wrong. The vast majority of people are silent
yes and thats a big problem, because nothing says "you're speaking the truth" than getting censored. It's why free speech is so important. People have the right to be wrong. If they're being silenced, you will never convince them and they will never aid the cause. What's the point in silencing someone if it guarantees their adversarial stance?
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud. Prove me wrong. There no such thing as a greenhouse effect: UA-cam video: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect (Tom Shula) 1) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Questioning the greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect is the primordial sacrament of modern climate science. It is. * * * The dystopian, one-party, Orwellian, preached from kindergarten to the nursing home. The simple name of this effect and its ubiquity in culture and mainstream media leave no doubt that we are dealing here with solid and fully understood Natural Science. But how does this actually effect work? 2) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Atmospheric greenhouse effect ~0? (Applying IPCC formulas to the no-atmosphere moon. Conclusion: there is no greenhouse effect on earth.) Min 6:xx. "Abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann model..." 3) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Saturation of the CO2-IR-Absorption (Min 0:10) The alleged greenhouse effect of 33 degrees centigrade is the result of an improper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (black-body radiation), and that a less abusive application of this law makes the greenhouse effect almost disappear. 4) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Convection and Thermalisation Kill The Greenhouse Effect UA-cam video: In-Depth Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Talk: Greenhouse Effect "Heat transport in the atmosphere... IT'S CALLED WEATHER." UA-cam Channel: Climate Discussion Nexus. 267 videos on climate fraud, hustle, and superstition mongering
When climate modelling (I'm a bit hesitant to call it science) has developed from a handful of scientists addressing academic questions into a multi-billion "industry" both funding research and peddling remedies and mitigations for "climate change", I think the public has a right to be at least wary if not skeptical.
When the climate modelling is wrong over and over again and doesn't even come close to reality (warming only 1/3rd what's predicted in best case) one can only concluded: chicken little/sky is falling.
Where do you people get this info from? A handful of scientists are doing all the climate modelling? Who then? Observations are 1/3rd of what was predicted in the best case? @@justinwhite2725
Climate change = send the government more money, and we will fix it. Over time , a free people will solve the problems without destroying the earth and economy.
When I six years old I watched the film Wargames. I didn't understand it. My mother and father explained what happened in the film when I asked them what the movie was about. My parents told me about the nuclear apocalypse. They explained to me what Global Thermonuclear War was and the end of the world can happen with the flick of a switch. Needless to say I was pretty terrified but looking back I was glad that Mom and Dad never sugarcoated the world and always answered my questions if I had them. I liked the word "Thermonuclear" it was big and I understood what it ment and that always impressed my teachers at school. So when I asked my teacher at school how my desk would protect me from a thermonuclear explosion during a nuclear drillI thought that I would receive praise for asking a good question with a large word. Instead I was sent to the principal's office for "being smart" this confused me greatly because getting smart was what I was at school for and now I was in trouble. The principal explained to me that I scared the teacher. And that I wasn't allowed to talk about global thermonuclear war in class. I find that people don't really want to face a serious crisis until it presents itself. They would rather ignore climate change the way they have ignored the nuclear threat for years. But the truth is that kind of behaviour is why we are facing a climate change crisis in the first place. Since the industrial revolution mankind has completely ignored the impact of the pollution it has caused. And anyone who wants to speak about it has been told to shut up on numerous occasions for over two hundred years. Intelligent scientists have warned the governments of the world for two centuries only to be told to sit down, shut up, stop being smart and they were scaring people needlessly. As a result I don't really try to bother the masses about the coming global devastation caused by the total and complete destruction of the environment this species needs to survive. But the sad truth is until someone and their dog burst into flames because they took a walk outside no one is going to care about climate change. It's futile to even try. It's like screaming at the top of your lungs to deaf people. It just wears you out and frustrates the hell out of you.
Mankind has COMPLETELY ignored pollution for since the industrial revolution??? Have you been asleep since that conversation with your teachers? Are u familiar with any of the following? Catalytic converters? Insulation? Smoke stack scrubbers? ead free gasolne? I could go on. our water and air are far cleaner than the day u hid under your desk. Maybe we should go back to slaughtering whales (oil) and use oil lamps again. Or we could all ride horse in our big cities, that sounds real sanitary. Maybe if u studied physics you'd understand how the green house effect hypothesis by alarmist supposedly works. if you did, you'd understand that CO2 has nothing to do with it. It's all based large on convection and conduction through the entire atmosphere which is 99.9% nitrogen and oxgen.
The problem with heat is how little change it takes the wet bulb temperature to go from nuisense (32 degrees celcius, unable to work outdoors) to deadly (35 degrees). Right now a few places on earth occasionally reach the "deadly" theshold. But many more places are only 4 to 6 degrees below.
Why do supposed climate activists buy beach front property for tens of millions if it will be underwater in a decade (or next decade, or next-next decade) 😅
I've noticed as an Australian, while our political landscape echoes America's in many ways, it's far less tied to identity. We're less likely to adopt stances based purely on party affiliation. It does happen, of course, but not to the same extreme.
Probably the difference is the origin of US political parties: they were intentionally created by Adams and Jefferson because neither trusted the general public to elect politicians that thought the way that A. and J. wanted, so instead of leaving it easy for unaligned politicians to get involved in their political feud the both of them pushed laws that made it easier for official groups of politicians to get on the ballot than unaffiliated politicians, which meant that they only needed to then control who was allowed to run _within_ the party- until the mid-1800s, no major party allowed even general party members to vote on who would run for office, only party leaders got to make the choice.
Sean, America is a stew of cultures. Name a people, they are here. There has never been a strong ‘social contract’. My observation is that civic cohesion dissolution began after Vietnam War, and went viral in the Clinton presidency. Now the U.S. is two political tribes with scant middle ground. It’s acidic. Australia had different genetics. As far as climate change, it was gamed by cynical politicians to justify government expansion. This, IPCC bias, and the inchoate nature of the subject alienated half the nation. LikeCOVID it was terribly mishandled. As for me, I identify as a Texan.
Yes, absolutely. The correct psychological phenomenon to look at is tribal psychology, as in Muzafer Sharif's Realistic Conflict Theory and the Robber's Cave Experiment. While most people think of it as a mechanism for creating "us vs them" hatred, what is missed is how much the opposing groups create and reinforce diverging cultural behaviors and beliefs. They are mutual reinforcing too. In Robbers Cave, the Eagles got the seed that the Rattlers swore a few times, so the Eagles policed themselves against swearing and grew a culture of being upscale, proper citizens and the Rattlers were lowlife. Conversely, the Rattlers saw themselves as streetsmart and authentic, and the Eagles were stuck-up snobs who faked being polite. They created and agreed on the underlying difference, but had different interpretations. That is why CC deniers tend to be Republicans, and alarmists tend to be Democrats. Both extremes are wrong and harmful -- and arguably the alarmists are worse because they have political power while deniers tend to be nobodies on the internet. To fix this problem we need to de-politicize the topic of CC. We can say that neither party has gotten it right, and we have a common cause here, so both parties will reject both deniers and alarmists, and work together on evidence-based solutions.
The reasoning is flawed. First Americans are all too familiar with charities that take money and don't use it for their stated purpose. I can name you ten off the top of my head that were raked over the coals in the press about using as little as 5% of their donations for their stated cause. I don't deny climate change, but I would keep that money for that reason alone. Very few charities are effective in their missions, and as a "do-gooder" I've seen this first hand. Second of all the Republican areas on your map are also states that are heavily invested in mining, oil production and other industries tied to contributing to climate change. It is less likely political affiliation and more likely concern about their careers or jobs.
Sounds like someone has trouble understanding language... Nowhere in this video was it stated, that voting preferences cause these beliefs, or whatever, simply that they are correlated, which is true.
"Very few *_US based_* charities are effective in their mission" There I fixed it for you 😊 The Red Cross here in Europe does not like to talk about their US branch at all. It seems like you have a problem with legislation holding people and organizations accountable. Maybe it is the (willfully?) whacky interpretation of your first amendment. Lying and slandering can never be free speech - unless you want free reign to crooks.
too bad you didn't: 1- criticize the article at all 2- given any statistics data: what was the p value of all these differences? 60 vs 40 is not necessarily a major difference.
The truth won't tell you the solution, which renders your approach fruitless. It's in the dispute over the solution where the problem lies too: the environmentalists tend to push things that bear costs that the majority _won't_ support (including the majority of climate change believers), while their opposers simply oppose them without proposing an alternative.
The Truth is there's NO man made climate change. Name a period of time where the earth hasn't changed naturally? This man made climate change push is a way to tax hard working people while the morons pushing this scam enrich themselves.
I think it comes down to a combination of factors. Yes, I agree the science is confusing and not well explained, but that's the tip of the iceberg. After all, if the science is confusing, how do people make up their minds? It's not the "facts" but rather our trust in the experts that really drives us to make the decision. Unfortunately our trust in the experts has been rather badly shaken over here in the states, but before we dive into a blackhole, let's keep it limited to how the experts have communicated with regards to climate change. The earliest memories I have of it were a combination of two things. First was Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which wasn't exactly the best presentation for the science. Second it was the news articles which all decided to adopt a singular phrase "settled science." This was a new idea to the public as even the most basic and rudimentary ideas in science get questioned. Then the scandals started rolling in. Scientists were drummed out of the community and had their careers ruined for questioning global warming. Other scientists complained about being added to the IPCC report without their knowledge. Things really started warming up (Okay, you got me. Pun totally intended there. :)) when we hit climate gate and realized the scientists had motives other than objective fact. This effectively left the reputation of climate scientists in tatters, and that's not just my opinion. (I am biased, but still.) The entire theory had to be rebranded from "global warming" to "climate change." That's when the real fun began! At that point we were told that local temperatures could increase or decrease in response to climate change. Warm summer? Climate change! Cold winter? Climate change! It's hard to take a theory seriously when opposing predictions are suddenly proof. If any change is Climate Change, what good is the theory? Of course motivated reasoning may have compounded this effect as alternate explanations started popping up. Arguments were put forward like the world is warming because of a natural swing from the mini ice age. Climate swings change the mammal population altering the CO2 levels, so it's not as simple as greenhouse gasses drive climate. Climate drives greenhouse gasses too! It didn't help that many of the sources of measurement were called into question. Things like why the Climate Change proponents kept insisting on using surface temperature readings when those stations were subject to urban island heat effects instead of using satellite data which gives a better overview. Why is it that the true believers wouldn't discuss nuclear energy solutions, CO2 scrubbing, or any other attempt to avert global warming? In that oh so American way, we said "The other side isn't rational, so we can't trust them!" while they said the same thing and started trying to assign motives behind some of these lines of questioning to root out climate deniers. It all just sort of snowballed. There's more to it, but I think this is probably more than enough for a youtube comment. Hopefully that helps to answer the big question of why there's a divide.
I can point to a major part of why the environmental lobby doesn't like talking about nuclear power: the hippies shaped it! That, + NIMBY, + the various nuclear scares and scaremongering around the Cold War all tilted them against nuclear, and that hasn't really changed. Add on the news media's lack of science understanding and desire for clickbait and you have a perfect situation for promoting the wrong approach!
Last summer the media sensationalized weather reporting with big scary red numbers and record breaking heats... That were the same as a decade ago where they used green tones. 2022 was so hot I worked naked (I worked from home and I'm in Canada) because I was dropping sweat. 40 degrees Celsius. 2023 was a COLD summer compared to normal and the media was running 'record breaking heat wave'. Literally contradicting direct experience. The I heard the story about Arizona airport having over 100 degrees fahrenheit that summer... So you are saying the Arizona DESERT is as hot as Calgary was the year before. That doesn't seem unusual to me, sorry. I see right through the scare tactics and it makes me numb to any of the other data because I simply can't trust that talking point.
As an outsider, its obvious that the rational people need to take rhe climate issue out of the democratic party & present it as an independent issue as much as possible. You can't trust either parties anyway.
@@manoo422 : I'm sure that's their _secondary_ goal. Their _primary_ goal is at this point clearly just to prance around like roosters that just got feather implants... _FROM PEACOCKS._
@@absalomdraconis They KNOW there isnt a problem to solve, they just have to put on a good show, as you say. While shuffling the money round behind the scenes back into their pockets...
Sabine, I just wanted to say that I found your channel some months ago, and saw a few. Once it became obvious that I was going to follow the channel, completion issues dictated that I start at the beginning and work forward through present. So, the last several months have been a long ten years! Today is blessed, as it is the first time that I've ever seen the channel while it was current. Thanks.
There's a simpler correlation; rural vs urban. Rural people don't care because they already live sustainably & hate the policies that force changes that are irrelevant to their way of life. Where as urban populations are easily panicked by the heat island effect. In short, it's your problem, not theirs; but you insist they bow down to your whims & demand their resources to clean up your mess.
There is an assumption that people who chose to keep the money do not believe in climate change. Perhaps they do not believe in these organizations being able to deliver results instead, or have different priorities. Perhaps they already spent their allowance on preventing nuclear war. There is at least a couple of possible reasons why they would keep the money. Besides, giving people 20$ may have a different psychological impact as having them pay 20$ out of pocket, especially in America. My expectation is that it would be much higher than 41%, especially as you kept increasing the amount. The second conclusion of the study (political correlation) may still be valid though.
Sabine your credibility is put into question with this video. Somebody like yourself should know Science is always open to debate. No one denies the climate changes or wishes not to keep a healthy environment, but plenty of serious and knowledgeable people question the alarmist theories and their motivations as well as the degree to which humans affect the climate.
Regardless of what you think about climate, "scientific consensus" does not equal "fact". History has proven that an enumerable number of times. Just way too many to count. So let deniers be deniers, without them, science can't go anywhere. Question everything!
Questioning everything just makes you go in circles, no? Things are "fact" until the observations no longer support those facts, in which case the model is improved or replaced by something better.
@@guy9360 If you aren't questioning, you aren't observing. You just see what fits. And no, questioning does not make you go in circles. It makes you go forward. Not questioning is a dead end of status quo.
@@apostolakisl Sooooo true. Those who are not questioning are always convinced that they are smarter, because they "follow the science" and everybody else is "denier".
I love the way you state that. it is true that if no one ever tells you you're wrong then are you ever really "right"? in the last few years, with the V that shall go unnamed here on youtube, it seems to me that the "deniers" turned out to be way more correct than the experts. just my 2 cents... (PS. i did get the vax (forced) so not complete anti-vaxer either).
The research seems to confirm what most Americans already recognize, that climate change denialism is a political stance. In this instance Democrats accept the science and want to make legislation based on trying to fight climate change. Since the typical Democrat wants to fight it, then reflexively the typical Republican is against fighting it (as it isn't real or we can't do anything about it.) There might be examples when Republicans align with the science, and Democrats reflexively argue against the science, but in this area, anthropogenic climate change, Democrats are on the side of science. The other point Sabine made about why worry about scientific misinformation if facts (or even false claims) don't change minds misses the point. For me, at least, I'm against misinformation not because I think it will make those that understand the science to change their minds, I'm against it because it is an excuse for those that don't want to accept the facts to refuse to do so. That is exactly why some psychologists believe that facts don't change minds. It is because "alternative facts" allow people to ignore true facts.
Doesn't the sea level rise argument make for one that is especially counter productive?! As one old enough, I remember that the argument was a core point before shift towards temperature rise and extreme weather events. It's been predicted that the sea level rise will move beaches to a line at Berlin or even beyond. (Guess may residence and age!) Nothing alike happened and that a few inches per century cause problems is rather due to the fact that so many people live close to the shoreline, especially in the first world many have chosen to do so. Obviously climate change and sea level do not correlate as simple as researcher thought they would. But how to leave an impression without dramatic predictions?! - And how to deal with those predictions, when they fail to appear?! Instead of ever again fighting over who's claiming or denying what, we need to move the discussion to what could _reasonably_ be done, where "reasonably" means without foreseeably destroying societies. - Even if perhaps nothing could be done without completely giving up what could be called an average level of living standards, that must be named and addressed. I am afraid that some if not even many of the so called "denier" feel that what is demanded in the name of "climate rescue" leaves the impression of questionable impact towards the goal, or even may cause "suicide in fear of death" in terms of society. Btw: Germans researching in this subject on Americans is ... not necessary!
"And how to deal with those predictions, when they fail to appear?!" Ignore the failed predictions, update the year, give it another 10 to 20 years and repeat the prediction.
@@thomasmaughan4798Sea level rise is accelerating due to Climate Change. Sea level has risen about 16 cm globally on average since 1900. It's still only 4.5 mm globally on average a year. NOAA - Tides and Currents Sea Level Rise.
I have a PhD in chemistry. I have read widely in climate science. Global satellite temperatures as measured by microwave proxies at various atmospheric depths have drifted upwards by a statistically meaningful value since 1980. I have found that climate activists have completely distorted the science of climate, in many cases reversing trends that have been reported in peer reviewed literature (wildfires, floods, droughts, severe storms, US tornadoes.....) to make them seem catastrophically bad. To put it bluntly, activists, whom the public will likely encounter rather than real scientists toiling away in academia, invent stuff. Most of the public will read about the flurry of fake activist news, and be completely unaware of the scientific papers contradicting the activist pronouncements. In my case "climate change denial" is actually denial of activist pseudofacts and catastrophist garbage. Could it be that some Americans also reject activist fabrications and have actually looked at real data, because they have more access to scientific facts online?
Americans are actually duped by climate misinformation routinely reported by Fox News. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy, and sits on their board.
I DON’T have a PhD in anything! But I am certain that if I did, I would not feel so insecure as to preface my OPINIONS such. Science is messy, frustrating and always in a state of flux. It is also the ONLY human endeavour to be reliably self-correcting. Don’t piss away the gifts of the Age of Enlightenment, you are not that clever!
The catastrophists coincidentally want all climate action to be done by paying them boatloads of grants to take private jets to the Paris Accords where they can be very important and control the economy for others. But sure, people who disagree JUST hate the planet, they don't have deep-seated concerns about the means of the Climate Lobby not resulting in improving environmental health at all but lining their own pockets along the way.
Some skeptics still refuse to believe the arctic has been ice free during the summer months since 2014,leading to the sad demise,and eventual extinction of the poor polar bears. denial of such facts are unforgivable
The climate has been warming for ten thousand years. If we spent one hundred trillion dollars to fight climate change, the best we could expect would be to slow the rate of change. Prior to spending one hundred trillion dollars, the USA would be bankrupt. No more social security, food stamps, government retirements, health care, repairs to roads and bridges and no more government jobs. Guess what? The climate would still be warming. The power grid would fail, water distribution would fail, and the supply chain would no longer exist. Most people in the US would starve to death. Perhaps we should consider adapting to climate change instead of trying to fight it!
You are proof of why climate deniers exist, bc you put together things that have nothing to do with each other. Yes, warning does happen naturally, over 20,000 year periods. It is a 20k cooling, then 20k warming. But natural warming happens slowly, it is measurable, well known. The problem is in the last 100 yrs we have seen warming that would be thousands of years of natural warming, and it is accelerating. What ppl like yourself dont understand is the effect on climate is not linear, we can hit a point where climate goes totally chaotic. We already see it, tornadoes in winter, massive droughts then massive floods. We see winters where plants are blooming in February, other places are seeing crazy freezes. The root cause is fossil fuels, whose use is still increasing. We should have been off of them a long time ago. Climate denial is coming right from the oil industry and the GOP, bc it is big dollars. Texas without oil is a third world county, 80% of its gdp is oil. We yell about Islamic terrorism,but if oil was worthless terrorism would go away, Iran would be a smoking ruin and a Russia wouldn't have a lot to pee in..
We're already bankrupt and the government thinks we can spend our way out of bankruptcy. That's a real problem unlike worrying about what the climate is going to be in 50 years so nobody wants to address it. We'll probably need warmer weather when we run out of money. Sleeping on a warm sidewalk beats sleeping on a cold sidewalk any day.
“Motivated reasoning” Is a two-way street. Funding “science” that says the government needs to take over any endeavor that requires any energy is quite the boon for anyone running a government.
There was an experiment in motivated reasoning where the researchers got a group of conservatives and divided them into two groups. One got a presentation on the reality of climate change and how the solution is to tax carbon and subsidize renewables. The other group got a presentation with the same climate science but the conclusion was that we should reduce regulatory hurdles for nuclear power. The nuclear power group was far more likely to be convinced of the reality of climate change. The policy proposal fit better with their worldview.
What was the average rate of sealevel rise between 14000 years ago and 7000 years ago? What is the average rate of rise over the last 150 years? What was the global average temperature during the hotttest portion of the Cretaceous period?
You as a science should never call anyone a denier, because it is cause stigmatization and closes the debate and search for new information. It causes a obstacle for future science when you try to use ruler technique to minimize people with a different opinion/theory. Use argument and not namecalling in a debate. I think it is reasonable to be critical to the group that uses name-calling. You are not presenting the "facts" in a good way by calling them deniers.
I’m a mature environmental science student. I don’t use vaccines any more. Not anti it, some useful, some negligible… just believe my body my choice. Everyone should be free to decide what goes in their body based on their individual circumstances. As long as you do the objective research and way up the risk benefits. I don’t understand the need for so much dogma around it. But expecting the judgement nevertheless.
Believing climate science is one thing, but to act on what is prescribed as the "solution" is altogether a different exercise. For one, if i see someone advocating for net zero carbon is flying a private jet to an exclusive skiresort so that he could preach about the science in front of others who also fly private jets to get there, i would have reservation about the imminent threats. The science may or may not be correct in predicting the future of climate. Those who claim they know for sure are definitely frauds.
On the other hand: if we keep hiding behind the blame game, we won't ever make a move. We will always find someone to blame as a reason not to do any change.
That’s a really silly way to think about it. Yes those people are sleaze balls, it’s called greenwashing. Obviously the people you describe have extreme gains to be made by actively lobbying against climate change, but need to keep up good PR with their public. So they say they support climate change, as a PR strategy. They’ll put a nice inspirational quote on their website or something, while continuing to lobby against it. And use private jets to an exclusive ski resort to give a nice bullshit speech. That does not mean the threat is not real. The overwhelming consensus of experts on the issue agree that it is real, already causing harm and increased detriments to our society because of it are imminent. No one is advocating for climate change because some because some ghoulish CEO says it’s good. It’s because there is a scientific consensus on the urgency of the issue. And those sleezeballs need to pretend that they give a shit otherwise the public will turn on them more than they have.
@@guy9360 Doesn’t invalidate the problem, but covers it in haze. Enough hypocrites preaching it like a religion creates a reality of “belief” rather than scientific study.
Not believing in giving unlimited power and money to a movement led by people who fly around in private jets and tell others to eat bugs is not completely irrational...
@@Thomas-gk42 The 'facts' are that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as measured daily at Mauna Loa and other locations, are growing at an increasing rate with no obvious effect from any of the multi trillion dollar actions taken, and that the people with the largest carbon dioxide footprints have clearly stated that they have no intention of changing their behaviors. And to correct your statement, these people are not the ones who "tell you about it", they are the ones that devise policies. These policies have been measurably ineffective and they have so little belief in them that they exclude themselves from being bound by them. Think of them as modern day indulgences. Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
In the US we have a large amount of big oil companies paying for a lot of disinformation. All you have to do is tell a bunch of people that by accepting the idea of climate change they are just a bunch of pussy hippies.
Yeah, nah... That's not how indoctrination works. Shill Sabine Horsendfeeler took thirty pieces of silver and accepted her treacherous mission to push the Globalist Agenda so I'm afraid you will have to put up with her proliferation of her religious dogma. Enjoy and don't forget that it's _your_ fault that the world is changing and nothing whatsoever to do with the millions of tons of ordnance being exploded in Europe and the Middle-East. Do your kids a huge favour; _don't have any!_
I saw that study. I had two thoughts - $20 is peanuts. Try it with real money. Second thought was, tell people they'll have to pay $1 a more per gallon for gas. Put another way, their independent variable didn't really constitute a test. It was too trivial and in a dimension that wasn't really related to the question.
Sabine I love you, your videos are great. BUT as a scientist - or portraying oneself as believing in science, then one must also QUALIFY the statement. Asking 100 ppl if they believe in climate change will properly be interpreted to mean 99 different things, with 99 differing contextual associations. This poll is unscientific my friend. Happy to speak further if you desire - cheers!
I agree, the study design has strong limitations. I'd be careful interpreting the results. But you also have to concede that it's very hard to design such studies in a way that such problems can be eliminated. It's in the nature of the scientific field to be quite imprecise.
“ There is a cult of ignorance in the United States and there always has been. The strain of anti intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge “ Isaac Asimov.
I think it has to do with how American society is so incredibly saturated with distractions and overwhelmingly fast-paced. Individual reasoning takes time/energy and I think Americans feel like it's more expedient to just "trust" the narrative of their chosen social/political group rather than think things through for themselves.
28% is 18+ out of 8.1 billion 😢, it is mean as 91% birth rate population will be 15 billion by 2050😢, The current population of India in 2024 is 1,441,719,852, a 0.92% increase from 2023. The population of India in 2023 was 1,428,627,663, a 0.81% increase from 2022. The population of India in 2022 was 1,417,173,173, a 0.68% increase from 2021. Eco+ nomy, nomy is human activities, so less eco more nomy indicates upcoming collapse and horrible things 😢 67% ecology destroyed, 98.97% biodiversity totally destroyed, 99.95% animal species gone extinct, 78.79% fungus species gone extinct, fungus are medicine for trees, so trees are no more immune from micro life infections, human creatures already acquired 85% land of soil on earth, 21% drinking water river got dried 😢, 2022 birth rate was 88%, 2023 91%, ecology is immune system of earth, biodiversity is nurvurs system of earth 😢, as trees are not immune from micro life infections, all green animals wil face horrible disease soon, 2025 fst cat 6 hurricane landfall 😢 2035 cat7 as temperature will be 62°c 2055 cat 8 temperature will be 65°c and 39% drinking water river will dry totally 😢 2075 fst cat 9 hurricanes will landfall 55%drinking water river will dry with 89% ecology destruction 😢 2475 Highest temperature will be 97°c 😢 Please give rest to planet 😢 I hope my knowledge and love can protect earth, knowledge is Power and love is solution,all boys can apply for my boyfriendship, minimum 10 years relationship required to be my husband, knowledge is knowing with ledger and love is creatures like to do most naturally.
"most of them misunderstand the science". No, not really. Instead, most of them understand, that scientists are motivated by money, the need to survive and to publish papers and all that can only happen if they comply with the mainstream "narrative" and obtain funding, which is conditional upon political priorities. So it's not that we do not understand science, rather, we do not trust scientists, politicians and the mainstream media. What most of us think is 1: Climate has always changed and always will. 2: Human activity does have SOME impact on climate. 3: CO2 has immensely beneficial effects on Earth and all living creatures on it. 4: There is NO climate crisis.
Climate "science" is what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science". It looks like science, it dresses in the clothes of science (complicated graphs, statistical analysis, conferences, computer models) but it lacks the willingness of science to disprove its own hypotheses - instead it looks for evidence to support the preconceptions of its practionners. There is ample evidence of this: "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline", climate models 'validated' by the fact that their output agrees with other climate models, the cancelling of climate scientists who do not endorse the narrative (example: Judith Curry), the exaggerated claims of its scientists ('Our children will not know what snow is', 'most of the beaches of the East coast of the US will have disappeared by 2020'...)
They are in denial about how "science" can be corrupted by money and political motivations, and so they get routinely misled off a cliff. Covid was a perfect example of that, and many are still in denial about that too.
@nicolasgirard2808Conservatives are funded by small donors primarily. Democrat funders however frequently fund anti-Trump candidates (Nikki Haley) on the Republican side . Democrats on the other hand get 3 times more money from big business. Todays Democrats are no longer the people's party, because they have been bought off by big business, lock stock and burrell. Every act of the current Democrat regime is harmful to the American people.
@nicolasgirard2808 Not at all. The problem is that those with opposing views usually get fired and that there is much more money for the mainstream research than for any alternative paths. As a result, many scientists don't want to sacrifice their careers for the honesty and rather do research in other fields or do only studies that have no real value but get results acceptable for their employer.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. Both political position and position on climate change are based on ones capacity of critical thinking. It's as simple as that.
Republicans and Americans, in general, didn't buy into global warming at the onset because it's "spokesperson" was Al Gore, the former Democratic presidential contender. He isn't a likable guy and comes off as a dullard. I know the GW community didn't pick Al Gore, but I really believe his involvement was detrimental.
The problem I have is that if you question anything about the "popular" climate change position you are labeled a "denier" which is ridiculous. Science requires that we question things.
Science is done by scientists, not by non-scientists. You become a scientist by beginning a scientific career, i.e. studying something in detail over many years as a full-time job. You DON'T become a scientist by reading about stuff for an hour or so! I don't know where you got the impression that science is done by the public, or that the public has the responsibility to question the science, or that science has a responsibility to explain everything to the public. Normally, neither does the public care about science, nor do scientists explain their stuff to the public. Of course there are exceptions, but none are as extreme as in the field of climate science. The topic has been politicized, and because of that every idiot thinks he's got the brains and the mission to become a climate scientist himself!
@@danielh.9010 Well that is a remarkably egotistical point of view. Everyone is responsible to question and pursue truth. If you really have the truth and understand it you can explain it to anyone. I forget which scientist said that but I took it to heart. I have worked with many scientists that I would not trust.
@@EngineersFearIf they are age old questions then the answer should be readily available and easily understood. Any question, while not necessarily useful, should be allowed to be asked.
Most of us are clear that the weather patterns we were used to have changed. But it's not clear to us what happened or is happening. That the cause is the activity of human beings is possible, but there is a lot of confusion due to the involvement of politicians, especially those currently in the UN. It is clear that there are commercial and political interests involved in the explanation and in the solutions. Trust has been lost even in their advisors, scientists are mentioned a lot, but nothing is said about engineers, scientists do not provide solutions, Engineers do.
Engineers don't get mentioned because the confusion isn't really from the UN, it's from the media and politicians, and neither of those two groups gains anything they want from getting engineers involved: instead the media and politicians get confused, and a problem they like to yell about disappears because it got a solution.
I have found in my life that people come to different conclusions from the same facts based on axioms that they hold to be true. This is true in climate change, gender ideology, systemic racism etc. This is even more complicated when said "fact" is just a soundbite, so easy to accept or dismiss based on your previous beliefs because there is no proof included. Maybe a discussion of what our axiomatic beliefs are would shine light on our differences, but people rarely discuss those as the whole point of an axiom is that it is obvious and taken as true.
I have generally found it to be less direct than that, because the "axioms" are _usually_ indirectly involved than directly involved. For example, on the abortion subject, one side might ask "is it human", while the other side might ask "is it conscious". I'd guess you can tell which side is which just from the question. The questions that you think are important, and therefore ask, alter the answer that you get, and thus the stance that you take. Pay attention to the media, and eventually you notice them giving away their own bias just from what questions they think are interesting enough to ask...
This is probably true for some subset of people, but broadly speaking I think you are assigning rationality where it effectively does not exist. Most people do not alter their beliefs or the things they say with reference to any semblance of a rational process because humans are not rational by default (self included)
The Health Mister for my province emplored pregnant and nursing women to get it, saying it was 'safe and effective' for them. The very next day Health Canada put out their official authorization (not just emergency but full authorization)and that paper said that the effects for pregnant and nursing women were still unknown. I was on the 'wait and see' fence waiting for long term data - but that was the moment when I spooked out of any of that. Dr Hinshae ought to have known they were unknown and shouldn't have been claiming they were safe without data.
Facts don't change minds taken out of context doesn't seem to make sense, but psychologically it takes a mind that is open to learning new facts, and lots of people's minds are closed because the social cost is too high, which is where the concept comes into play. Not everyone is cut out to be a scientist, or be a life long learner. I doubt Sabine will see this comment, but if someone who actually talks to her does, please forward it to her. I'm a retired cognitive behavioural therapist speaking from my knowledge base however limited it may be, it's still better than no foundation at all.
I'm not actually certain what you were trying to say with that first sentence? Regardless, I'll point out that the stereotypical sources I've seen on the climate change subject have been twisted to some obviously unreasonable stance regardless of which side they've been on. The environmentalists reliably prefer reduced consumption even though that hasn't worked in all the years since Carter, and solar + wind although the sources I've seen reliably say that won't work without greatly reduced consumption (read the first part of this sentence again); meanwhile, the deniers reliably reject the environmentalist simply because it comes from environmentalists (a group they've come to associate with lots of demands and anywhere from little to _negative_ results). When this is what is readily available, rejecting the opposing side becomes justifiable.
. @absalomdraconis All I can say, re-read my comment again. All I said was that changing opinions with facts is harder than it looks. The rest of the argument you seem to be making is not my concern here as any opinion I have is in the bigger scheme of things irrelevant.
If the solution to climate change weren't always, "give up food ways older than homo sapiens, give up your rights, give government more power, and spend more money we don't have," I think the reception to climate discussions would be very different. A lot of climate advocates don't realize how steep a hill they have to climb thanks to 40 years of inaccurate predictions. It doesn't matter if the prediction is right this time, folks aren't going to just believe it because you have a couple fancy graphs and the backing of some academics. The old predictions had those too. I mean, I am willing to go along with it either way because there are no fossil fuels in space... we're going to need this technology regardless of who is correct, and I view the imperative to become truly spacefaring as critical.
@@terrablaze3387 If you have been around for a while, you will remember the predictions from the 1970s, when the biggest crisis was that we were going to cause global cooling. Literally, they were predicting doom by anthropogenic ice age. I have lost track of the number of times we passed the dates where the ice caps were supposed to be totally melted regardless of any action we took. I'm not saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing, but the science is not and never has been as precise as it is portrayed to be. I saw reports the other day which show that things are far WORSE than we previously believed because they plugged a slightly different value for a single synthetic constant governing sensitivity in the models, and the results were basically "We're screwed." Is that correct? Who knows? The thing we were told five minutes before was unquestionable gospel, "the science was settled," how can this new thing be so different if that's the case?
The problem with these surveys is that you need to define the question. If someone asked me “Is climate change happening and is it caused by humans?” My answer would be a qualified “yes”. Of course climate change is happening (it always is) and human emissions have to have some effect. I just happen to believe it’s not a problem. ECS looks to be at most around 1 degree or slightly higher based on actual climate data (not models) and that’s overall beneficial. The models are clearly running way too hot and it’s not too surprising if you understand anything about them. Am I a believer, a skeptic or a “denier”?
I think there is a serious aspect that no one seems to take into account. In the 70's we had pretty much convinced people that pollution was bad, had a commercial with a crying native american and everything. It was highly successful in changing people's behavior. Then Al Gore comes along and cranks the rhetoric to number 11 and his solution is cap and trade. And wouldn't you know it, he has a business setup that profits greatly on handling these transactions. He just needs to make it mandatory to really bring the money in. They will eventually charge you for your carbon footprint. CO2 is what your exhale, so it's a round about way of charging you for air.
Cap and trade (market based) was the republican solution to tackling air pollution. Al Gore compromised with republicans on that point and ran with it, because it was a means to accomplishing his goals.
Most things in the US is political. For example, Republicans are anti immigration. Democrats proposed a bill that would curb immigration dramatically. But because it is a Democratic bill, Republicans and Conservatives are against it.
In the US, we have a very, very polarized media ecosystem where people literally have different ideas of what basic fact is depending on political persuasion.
Right-leaning (more like libertarian or as I'd prefer, independent) Texan here, I think there is an important cultural issue that people in Europe and even some non-right-leaning Americans (somehow) do not understand or at least pretend not to grasp. That is that climate change at some point in the United States was either adopted by or became otherwise associated with the liberal/left both abroad and here at home. Many of my friends and family absolutely do not trust the left/Democrat party with virtually any policy or platform (I mostly agree, with the caveat that Republican politicians also screw us - sometimes in cahoots with the other side, e.g. immigration policy.) This is exacerbated by an association with obnoxiously political American celebrities & personalities (who want us to make sacrifices but make none themselves), obnoxious people abroad (Greta...) and political and economic opportunism (Al Gore.) I personally would often align myself in the past with climate skeptics for the sole reason that the personalities-associated with the issue and the credibility of the loudest advocates was (still is, in many cases) suspect. I have almost never doubted that it was happening, that at least most of the science was credible, etc. There is - at least among more educated 'conservative' Americans, also probably a cynicism that the issue even can even be resolved, considering the economics involved and the disparate and often-antagonist parties around the world that would need to cooperate for that to happen.. There is probably a lot more I could say on the topic, but I've said too much for many I'm sure. Just a 'red-state- Americans two-cents..
Very interesting comment, thanks. But it begs the next question, how do the people not see that by denying the facts they are shooting themselves in the foot in the end? I mean I can understand the motivation to piss off perceived obnoxious people but at some points the chickens come home to roost.
@@thorium222 Some GOP get it. They just do not care. They want to keep their money. If you basically do not want to spend money on solving a problem, the easiest way is to just make it a fake problem. See. It worked. What they don't get is that its a pay me now, or pay me more later plan. As long as the house and office stay at 72°F, they do not believe they are affected. Trouble with connecting the dots.
"Right-leaning (more like libertarian or as I'd prefer, independent) Texan here, ..." I like your reply! I don't have to agree or disagree with you. You simply stated how you feel and why you have the opinion you do. We need more of that from all of us!
> climate change at some point in the United States was either adopted by or became otherwise associated with the liberal/left That concern is exactly part of the problem. "I must always oppose the left" implies that you will necessarily be required to oppose objective reality at times. Its objective so you are able to see it yourself, but because "the left" also sees it you convince yourself to deny what you're seeing purely to "pwn the libs!" despite the fact that the only one you're actually "pwning" most of the time is yourself. This willingness of right-leaning people to deny absolutely anything just to oppose the left is the source of that "reality has a liberal bias" cliche. It's true, but kind of mixes up cause and effect. Reality just is what it is - its liberals that have a reality bias and, due to the need to oppose "the left" no matter what, conservatives find themselves with an anti-reality bias. > This is exacerbated by an association with obnoxiously political American celebrities & personalities That's mostly a you problem. As someone who leans left, I find the celebrities and personalities on your side equally obnoxious and for pretty much the same reason - they're saying things I don't agree with and it frustrates me that anyone pays attention to their "obvious" nonsense. That said, you really shouldn't be paying attention to celebrities and personalities at all - 99% of them have no better clue what they're talking about than you do, on either side of the isle. They're just regurgitating the same talking points you already know. Being on TV or on UA-cam is not, in itself, a qualification for much of anything beyond the ability to stand in front of a camera. > a cynicism that the issue even can even be resolved That's not the same as denial. That cynicism also fully exists on the left, albeit for slightly (but not entirely) different reasons. Cynicism implies that you understand the problem but you don't believe in the solutions available. It can easily be overcome by the introduction of a better solution, or an existing solution being adopted more widely than you'd anticipated. Denial implies a fundamental failure to understand the problem itself. Given the amount of information available (and arguably forced upon us), this is almost always an _intentional_ choice to remain ignorant. That is not something that can be overcome, generally speaking. Usually the only way someone can overcome their intentional ignorance is through personal experience, and unfortunately by the time the majority of the people have enough personal experience with climate change that they simply can no longer remain ignorant it will be far too late to do anything about it no matter how much money we're suddenly willing to throw at the problem. _Intentional_ ignorance is a massive problem in the US (and the world more broadly), and the "I must oppose the other side no matter what!" ideology you espouse is one of the primary reasons people choose to remain ignorant.
I can tell you a big reason climate activism has become a "liberal" issue. Because the right in america is idealogically opposed to doing anything for the benefit of anyone but themselves. The idea that people should change how they live so that other people (whether its their children or people living close to the equator) can have a better life goes against their worldview. Which is one of "I got mine so fuck you"
when I was a kid and winter came everything would freeze and it would snow more the a few inches. now its mud and rain with occasional flurries. the weather is absolutely changing over a very short span of time in my opinion. I don't need other people's opinions to form my own, I can see the change with my own eyes.
Well that's the point she is making too. It is not because people don't see it happening. They see it but choose to ignore it, and the evidence, because Politics. So basically they are saying, I should be allowed to get fried alive because it is my freedom to do so. And others with it
The problem with this "climate thing" is that the Western left wing has taken over the subject and has applied its pushy, annoying methods to it. This includes over-sell, disruption and a demand for an absolute submission to the cause. The right wing are irritated by the antics. That is why attitude climate change has become a marker for political affiliation. (Subsequently, canny business people have risen to take advantage, by pretending to care.) The pragmatics are that the 7 billion people who cannot afford renewables will continue to burn coal, and we will get to 600-800 PPM CO2. Then, physics will do what physics does - apply the rules without any fear or favor.
I am an American who has doubts about climate change theory, primarily because it is not science (application of the scientific method.) "Evidence" is just a form of handwaving argument: there is no falsifiable question, no test methodology, no performance of the test, no analysis. Instead we get land and air temperatures. In a world 2/3 covered with water those are meaningless; the surface entropy is well over 99% dependent on water temperatures. I love this channel, but I don't accept glib theories. I worked for 48 years as a troubleshooter in avionics and communications, the latter with a Fortune 100 electric company. I had a reputation for never misdiagnosing anything, although some defied diagnoses. I was not quite infallible, though: in 1975 I jumped the gun on a diagnosis of fuse failure because it had the same presentation as the very common failure from baking in the Phoenix sun. It turned out there was an intermittent transistor in the voltage regulator that increased the current draw when the unit was very hot. Maybe it would be worse now? Asking me to sign on to anthropogenic climate change theory is heresy. Superstition ain't the way.
Another problem is climate change is being used by politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats to increase taxes and control over people. If there is one thing life has taught me, you can trust politicians and bureaucrats to look out for *themselves* and not you. Also climate scientists lost their credibility when they attacked and cancelled fellow climate scientists who disagree with their alarmist narrative. And if "The debate is settled!!!" then why are there dozens of climate change models and not just one?
It's all hubris. Most academics have never had a real job, where their mistakes have immediate and measurable consequences. As a result they become detached from reality and obsessed with the ideal.
Climate science relies on observations so the "method" is to fit these to the models, so why is this less scientific than other disciplines, such as astronomy or paleontology? We have millions of data points measuring global temperatures and CO2 levels measured by a standardised method and they all point in the same direction: CO2 is rising along with the global temperatures. Furthermore we have ice core data going back more than a million years and various indirect methods to determine global temperatures. Two observations stick out 1. CO2 levels were never more than 300 ppm in the last million years until the last few decades (it is now 400+). 2. There is an irrefutable correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. All other factors, such as solar output and the earth's orbit have been taken into account. Nay sayers think the natural variations have not been input into the models (they have), or have grossly exaggerated their impact (such as volcanoes).
Another problem is climate change is being used by politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats to increase taxes and control over people. If there is one thing life has taught me, you can trust politicians and bureaucrats to look out for *themselves* and not you.
@@Roguedeus Also climate scientists lost their credibility when they attacked and cancelled fellow climate scientists who disagree with their alarmist narrative.
The scientists jumped the gun at the end. If you look at some of Jonathan Heidt's work on political affiliation, you would realize in the US the factors that make you more likely to be either conservative or liberal, for example. It turns out that conservatives take in a wider number of variables in considering questions. This suggests this is more to do with the evaluation process and less to do with political affiliation. Both the political affiliation and these traits would be a function of this different formula for evaluation criterion.
But what if other sources have much more reason to be biased? Honestly, scientists are paid by the public to do research in a non-biased way. The system has its flaws, but there is no other institution in our human society that is less biased.
@@danielh.9010 I would have agreed with you before they started patenting knowledge and creating their own startups. Look at the history of Rwanda to see that anybody can get caught up in the media hype - even scientists. That said, my reservation is a small one "as Geronomo said to Haiawath" and overall scientists are wonderful people, especially the lovely Sabine
what a unique original perspective that you are the first person in hundreds of years of science has thought of. bravo. you are a natrual genius! wow! my gosh if only science had only thought of this issue before! wow, we're so lucky you just though of it! if only the millions and millions of scientists who have existed have ever considered this issue. we need more people like you making the decisions in our society.
What if the fire-alarm goes off and there is no fire? I wouldn't want to make a gamble with stakes that high. What is this "bias"? How much "bias" is there? Can you quantify that? And if there is bias, how much does this affect the results? Are there enough contradictory evidence and observations to seriously still doubt the consensus? I feel like it's more than time to accept that there is a problem and invest time and resources in finding the right ways to mitigate it.
I would probably be counted among the skeptics, but I do not consider myself a denier. Sabine hit on one of the reasons for my skepticism. The science is not explained very well. The algorithms used in the climate models certainly contain a number of assumptions. But, finding anyone to explain the algorithms much less the assumptions or reasons for making those assumptions has proven impossible. At least, it has been an unfruitful search for me. If someone can point me in the right direction to find those explanations, it would be appreciated. Without full transparency in the science, we are left to blindly accept the conclusions of the experts. That doesn't seem like a course that a rational person would follow. Another reason for my skepticism is that mitigation efforts seem to be a complete waste of time. There is a reality that climate change activists do not seem willing to accept. China and India are two of the world's largest emitters of CO2 and their emissions are only growing. The level and growth of their emissions are so great that any reductions in emissions in the US and Europe will not have any meaningful impact on climate change. Another reason for skepticism is that most of the efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change involve sending large sums of money from the US and Europe to third-world countries. Countries that are run by corrupt dictators who misuse the money to enrich themselves. Like it or not, believe it or not, climate change is coming. Pointing fingers and insulting one another will only make matters more difficult. Full, honest, open transparency is the only hope we have of meeting the future successfully.
There is also problem that those who are advocating for so called "renewable energy" don't understand that energy sector based solely on intermittent sources can't fulfill energy demand and usually refuse nuclear energy. They know nothing about the subject but have very strong opinions about everything related. This includes politicians who make decisions impact others while they stay unaffected.
Climate models are quite accurate. Hausfather - Climate models - Geophysical Research Letters. America's historical CO2 emissions are greater than China's. America per capita CO2 emissions are more than double that of China's.
@@GeorgePapadopolous Models are seemingly accurate because they are fine-tuned against real temperatures. So in order to test them, you need to test something else than what they were tuned for. And as seen in many studies, they fail miserably. So, one can safely say that their temperature accuracy is rather artifact than feature.
They can't and won't explain the assumptions because they're ad hoc and are justified because they work on a very short time scale. We know nothing about how the sun and earth and climate work on long time scales. Clouds are one of the biggest questions. They have a huge effect on weather and we have no idea how they work. They have to be included in the models so they are. Try to find somebody who can explain what they've input to the models on how clouds work.
I think we do a better job in the US of questioning authority. Perhaps this is genetic. After all, if our forebears had kowtowed to authority, they wouldn’t have needed to leave their home countries. For me, it is not so much doubting the theory of climate change but of being intensely skeptical of the proposed “solution,” which, coincidentally, tends to concentrate power in the political class and a small number of rich and powerful individuals and corporations. Oh, it also tends to not do a whole lot about the problem. So, there will always be an ongoing crisis that will demand greater and greater governmental interference in our lives to address it. Isn’t that convenient?
Not really at all actually. American conservatives absolutely love authority and power. Look at "back the blue" and the whole love for the military and governmental power. Mostly they just want "rules for thee but not for me" There is nothing convenient at all about facts and science. There is just some uneducated racist yokels stuck in the 18th century wringing their hands over their local oil baron losing 5% profit in the future. Its sad and really the Christian right is entirely to blame
It is more likely because in EU, people don't get alternative views in their native languages - mostly because the lack of 1A and due to many "disinfo" related regulations (censorship).
"Climate change denier" is an odd phrase for a scientist to use when referring to people who probably agree that the climate is changing but just don't agree that less-reliable energy is the answer. I expect a little more precision. Maybe when the global elites stop globe-trotting the planet in their private jets we can revisit the topic. In the mean time, how 'bout a study of the percentage of Tesla owners who have gas-powered backup generators at their house(s).
On the other hand I know other people who believe that climate change is not human caused. Shall we simply call them all "science deniers"? Or would that lump them in with flat earthers which would only make matters worse? We can fragment opinions even smaller, but then they become impossible to study, as we now have to compare "climate change deniers" with "human caused climate change deniers" and "people who believe climate change is real and human caused but prefer to do nothing until a solution they're convinced by comes along"?
@@KristopherNoronha This is quite an interesting take on my post. Of course, the simple answer is not to call people "climate change deniers" when it is inaccurate. By any chance do you own a Tesla and also have a gas-powered backup generator at your house(s)?
Science only tell us facts, not opinions. It's science that determines whether the climate change actually happening and human causing that. On the other hand, what kind of actions we should take when facing the climate change is the matter of the politics, rather than science.
Why is this always a one-way street? 'Motivated reasoning' is what all people are doing to hold on a belief system they are convinced of. And with all respect, Ms Hossenfelder: saying climate change is happening and is caused solely by humans is a very un-scientific thing to say.
OMG! So witty! Tell me you need to push your ego into a superiority frenzy without telling me.. bla bla bla. And I ain't a denier you fool. @@southwestedc
In the US this is largely a political issue instead of a scientific issue, which is a common view amongst many global issues for the American right. Pretty much any issue one can think of has been made into something politically fueled so the right can keep blaming the left and retaining their voters. I'm sure this happens with left-leaning issues as well, but due to my household and lack of interest in politics I am only exposed to the right.
It's been often observed by me in the US that for many people, even those who tend to be pretty rational; the facts don't matter it's who says them. And more importantly it's what facts are approved by the side you follow. Facts that support the other side can always be dismissed as propaganda. "Corporations and governments can easily manipulate data, so all data is capable of being wrong, and so whatever the other guys are saying, it's clearly the wrong stuff. The people I trust have shown the correct data."
And what really matters most to human beings is who's funding them. Scientists think that they're different from normal human beings based on no evidence.
Of course the facts are propoganda based on who spreads them. After all, the people spreading them mostly choose _whether_ to spread them based on if they _like_ those facts or not, making the spreaders propagandists by default.
I just wrote up a very respectful comment on your distorted presentation and you tube deleted it before I could post it. Which a of coarse confirms exactly what I was stating. A fan of yours but move on to some real science that doesn’t get censored by social media because it isn’t real science.
"censored by social media because it isn’t real science." I often capitalize it: It isn't Real Science (tm) to convey the idea that Real Science is approved for human consumption; the sort of thing you find on Skeptical Science website. It is a lot like a religion.
I also just wrote a comment and got deleted. And it was nothing related to a critique or the video neither nothing offensive. Just a link to another Sabine's video. Sometimes youtube doesn't work well. It's not targeting your particular comment, don't take it personal. (I'm not even sure this reply will appear)
Technically, we are not causing it. We are accelerating it, but not causing it. This is pretty obvious, as climate changed before humans had a say in it. So if the language of a question was: Does the climate change? my answer would be yes. If the question was: Do human activities cause climate change? my answer would be: No, not exclusively. If I can only choose yes or no, I need to choose no as a scientist. The question isn't put properly, often by ignorance, sometimes on purpose. The language around climate change is very important, because single words can make the difference between understanding what actions are required or harmful. It's very unlikely that someone looking all at the facts available (not in an echo chamber) would disagree with a carefully phrased statement, similar to: "Climate changes, as climate is no constant but driven by many variable factors like earth's orbit around the sun, axis orientation, sun activity, volcanic eruptions, and many more. Human activity, like releasing formerly bound carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere, has a warming effect on earth's average temperature. As we are leaving an ice age, which is not a normal climate state and is characterized by lower than normal average temperature, temperature is rising anyway. Human activity accelerates that." But let me be clear, "humans cause (an otherwise constant) climate to change" is as much a scientific nonsense statement as "climate change doesn't exist" or "human activity has no impact on climate change".
Political motivation is definite part of it as both sides have used it as a tool to influence their voters one way or another, but its just part of the answer. I would have liked to see this study also look at people who are not republican or democrat and see which way they respond to this question... There are quite a lot of independents who think one way or the other and to get a complete picture. It would also be interesting to see what age each of these groups were as well. I find older people are much more prone to be climate deniers then younger people in the US.
Climate Denial in the US goes hand in hand with a lot of other denials. Correlation isn't automatically causation, but it is the clue that should lead you to dig deeper. 35 years ago I saw American TV adverts and couldn't believe the aggressive mendacity. Why? If it sells, it continues, but that don't make it moral or healthy. The problem has been endemic for a long long time.
Yup. Confirms what I've been saying all along. Wrapping Climate Change in politically polarizing language doesn't help the cause, it hurts it. Just as important: insulting language, such as "What's wrong with the brains of climate deniers?" won't help things either.
Basically its all the people inside the matrix telling those outside they dont understand the truth!!
Absolutely. Name calling and censorship are the standard means of those who are weak and insecure in their positions. Meanwhile there's abundant science showing that C02 is pretty much inconsequential to climate in the incredibly minuscule amounts we're talking about, but those who believe the hype are usually ignorant of that, or else in denial that it even exists.
Correlation is not causation... unless it supports the agenda in which case it is.
U sound like a MAGA. JK
You're right, but I do seriously want to know what's wrong with their brains...
As an American, I promise to find new and interesting ways to disappoint you.
As a Canadian I was kinda hoping you could stop doing that for a while, give us a chance to catch our breath. :)
Brit here.. hold my beer
Just look at the gun violence.. nuff said
take care, usa is reaching limits, cannot dissapoint much more.
What can make you serious beside Donald Trump😂
“It is easier to fool the people, than to convince them they have been fooled.”― Mark Twain, an American.
to fool the people ... like Make them believe that paying more taxes will change the Climate "somehow" 🙄
And, I say that about most Democrats and Biden supporters.
How to sell the energy transition to righty - you speak in their language. National security via energy security. Reduced trade deficits, keeping £/$Billions within the domestic economy, more high skilled employment, prestige, and not being beholden to dodgy oil dictatorships for your energy needs.
@@michaelchildish that Normal people language !
But if US has it's own oil and natural gas then why to give on and import made in china Solar ? 😛😛
@@BryanTorokBiden didn't fool us. We don't even like him very much. I've noticed Trump supporters seem to be under the impression that we want to lick Biden's boots and have his babies. No. Just because you guys do that with Trump doesn't mean we do with him. You guys didn't with other Republican presidents either. We just vote for him. That's it. And, again, you guys didn't do this with your former Republican presidents either. Everyone used to be more rational.
We weren't at all excited about Biden and we would drop him like a sack of potatoes if he did a tenth of what Trump has. It's just that almost anyone is better than a guy who was impeached twice, has innumerable charges, denies science, and was ultimately such a sore loser that he told his ignorant followers that the most secure election in US history was rigged, knowing they're THAT ignorant, enough to believe THAT. Then he incited an attack on the Capitol and the treasonous battle flag of the Confederates was flown inside the Capitol for the first time in US history. That didn't even happen during the Civil War. So thanks for that, Trump. Thanks for putting that mark on our American legacy. Not to mention all the, you know, deaths.
Unlike almost everyone on both the left and right, I don't just talk like this about every president from the other side. I try to support my president. I tried to support Trump. But he's just uniquely evil and unqualified. Officially topped Nixon as our worst president yet. Anyone who wants to do worse is practically going to have to open fire on the public because Trump already essentially did just that through his zombie army.
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." - Donald Trump
"This suggests that climate change denial in the united states has little to do with reasoning to begin with, and it's instead strongly tied to political orientation and identity."
I guess it makes sense that this isn't obvious to people who don't live here, but here in the US this has been blindingly, maddeningly obvious for decades.
That was the perception to people with view from outside as well, however a scientific examination on actual facts is always good.
With Democraps being the most gullible and easily lead into handing over their tax to crooks.
When your average American thinks of climate change, they will likely think of Al Gore.
I think there are some opportunities to put a dent in global CO2 that might be politically bipartisan. Moving industry into the US and powering it with natgas would be far better for emissions than skeptically regulated lignite coal plants that do most of this work currently. Jobs, industry, infrastructure and environment gains...seems like a winner.
The real unfortunate thing is that, when pushed in the right ways, political identity will likely override that reasoning. Controversies over vaccination, medical technology, intersex biology, etc. suggest there's a growing anti-intellectual camp in US politics that rejects science itself (as "woke" or something, probably).
As a long time educator in America, I have noticed that people here are very interested in what is true and only marginally interested in why it is true. The "why" question is always more subtle and nuanced than the "what" question. I think that this represents a failure of our education system. I think that this allows some people to stick to their beliefs regardless of the evidence because, in their opinion, evidence is not the standard to judge truth by. If it seems right, or even seems like that in a fair world it would be right, then they believe in it.
There is also the issue that someone will read something online or in a book and stick to that truth no matter what also. Esp if the person who said such thing is an important figure in society or at least in that persons mind. I agree with you on the why its true statement, few young people today really seek out why something is true and usually just stick to the first thing that is said is true. As a society in the USA we do not value education as much as we should and that is such a terrible disservice that we can do to the future generation.
How can you know something is true, if you don't know why it is true?
American educator is an oxymoron.
I hope you've watched Feynman's take on why questions. And don't tell me you haven't heard of Richard Feynman - because I do not accept such statements#
Agree
There's not much an individual can do about the weather, so the rational action is to ignore the fear-mongering and go about your day.
Climate and weather are not the same.
One big thing to note is that not all opposition to climate change measures is because of a lack of belief in it. Several initiatives aren't proven ways to actually reduce carbon emissions because they're going after easy targets; the fact that California can limit gas lawn mowers but not private jets for example.
That said, Americans are based in a culture that was borne from challenging authority. It's served us well this far and will continue to do so.
Challenging authority has no merit if that challenge consists of a simple denial of everything without any work put into it. You should earn your respect as an expert in a field before you question experts. I'm a scientist but not an expert in climate science. I can learn from climate scientists, but I really can't earnestly question them. I pick my authority and that is and should be the IPCCC
@@beattoedtli1040 skepticism is a good thing, and far more conducive to society than blind acceptance of anything a person with a degree has to say.
@@frankreasoning7993 could you give a reason why "scepticism is a good thing" holds true? You are missing the third possibility, namely that scepticism is neither always good nor never appropriate, but that sometimes it's just not appropriate in certain situations. Namely when an obvious way of checking is available that can heavily reduce uncertainty (albeit at the cost of an effort many climate deniers are neither willing nor possibly capable of making)8
@@beattoedtli1040 She took her thirty pieces of silver, mate, and now the Military Industrial Complex _owns_ Sabine Horsendfeeler.
Notice, she will never talk about the millions of tons of ordnance exploded in Europe and the Middle-East with regard to damage to the climate. Nor will she mention the impact that tanks, humvies, helicopters, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc., could have on the environment. Right?
She's a shill and and enemy of our kind. But of course, since _she_ didn't mention any of this, as far as you are concerned, CO2 generated by the military is much less harmful than the CO2 coming out of your big mouth, right?
W4nker!
Wrong Wrong and Wrong. "California can limit gas lawn mowers but not private jets for example." California CAN limit private jets and has chosen NOT to do so. WHY? WHY? and WHY?
I think science communication has become too entangled with political aims in the US, and that has done serious damage to the credibility of the research.
More precisely, political and corporate players have abused science in the war over public opinion, thus eroding public trust in science. This is made possibly by an uneducated public that knows almost nothing about how science works, i.e. how scientific knowledge is gained and how academia is organized. Thus, the public is unable to even identify situations where said manipulation occurs.
The climate change hysteria is coming from the UN, a political organization chiefly concerned with expanding their power and influence. Covid, same thing, a pile of BS hype that was exposed as lies, much of which also came out of the UN. Coincidence?
it isn't just that, I don't care "the science" if the solution is give a bunch of socialists money. we have no way to spend money on the climate. because the welfare state only pays university grant recipients to raise awareness of wrongdoing. none of the money ever goes to renovating industry.
"has done serious damage to the credibility of the research."
Similar outcome but I think many people are simply not interested in politically tainted or motivated research. It is known that climate research is politically motivated:
"by S Cevik · 2022 · Cited by 13 - The conceptual framework for examining the relationship between climate change and income distribution is a reflection of deep structural changes"
"Nov 5, 2022 - Let's say it straight out: It is impossible to seriously fight climate change without a profound redistribution of wealth, both within countries "
Ottmar Edenhofer Quote: “Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth.”
@@thomasmaughan4798 Edenhofer is an economist, not a climate scientist. If you look at his entire quote what he was addressing was fossil fuel companies, and saying that regulating them de facto affects certain countries more than others since certain countries are producers of fossil fuels. I'm not sure how this is "tainting climate science" it is an observation not a recommendation. This is an economists job, to see how policies affect economies, and a result of regulating fossil fuels is that the wealth of rich oil states then moves towards poorer states. For example taxing oil and building batteries instead would take money away from Saudi Arabian oil and move it towards Indonesian nickel.
As for the S Cevik quote, this is an International Monetary Fund paper. Again, not climate science, economics, and again this exact quote is a descriptive claim not a prescriptive one (although this paper may make economic recommendations later). The full quote is talking about how any response to climate change will necessarily have impacts to globalization and income inequality - just as any large monetary policy would.
Both of these quotes are simply describing the economic implications of policy decisions. I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that it taints or motivates research, especially not climate research (although it may motivate or be motivated by economic research in the case of the IMF).
Using these quotes to assert that the science is "tainted" is either misunderstanding the quotes themselves, or just arguing in bad faith.
I'll totally take the money and watch the climate skeptic video. No, I'm not climate change deniar. I'm a skeptic of Climate change action. For example - do even 1% climate change activist care or know about things like deforestation, desertification, declining water table etc that're not directly related to CO2 and may worsen by emission reduction measures (like deforestation to make room for solar farm)?
A problem in America is that science often becomes “political science”. That is to say, legislators will go so far as disallow questioning of the science. “The time for talk is over!” Science should always be open to questioning. Scientists often work on grants, and it is believed that they will reach the conclusions that their benefactors are seeking. They should allow science to use the scientific process.
thats not the problem because science is political, because political means the way we organize public life, don't you think that we use science to organize public life? i do. The problem is that they mix science facts with political policies.
It is not quite as simple.
I recommend the book "Politics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society" by Zeynep Pamuk.
She dissects the topic beautifully.
She notes that research is naturally limited and has a margin of error.
It is important that this uncertainty is clearly communicated and that the topics getting researched are subject to political debate and democratic decisions.
Should we for example continue to pour billions into fusion research?
It is highly uncertain it will ever work in practice and it is certain it will not come in time to mitigate climate change.
The money could conceivably be better spent on battery technology and recycling of wind turbines and solar cells.
In my opinion public money without strings attached could also lend greater credibility.
I agree about science inherently comes with uncertainty and it's incredibly important to get people to understand this. But then disagree with the rest about battery over fusion. Scientific advances should never ever be judged by what immediate practical use it has in the moment. We wouldn't have electricity if it is the case.
Science should influent certain part of politic, it's impossible to separate them. However, it is important to get people to understand how science actually works and for people to know how to think critically so they can handle the information thrown at them. Back to uncertainty. It is inherent and inevitable in absolutely everything. But almost everyone out there has a warped view of this. They associate science with absolute fact and uncertainty = you don't know what you are talking about. While in reality, if somebody gives you an absolute answer on almost anything outside of maths, they are either knowingly lying to you or they are stupid
Americans deny climate change _because_ it's part of the american politics system. Politicians are using this lie to get votes. In the meantime, the average american is confused or even start to distrust sound science and observable facts.
Stop manipulating your citizen's minds to use them for political gains or votes 😂
@@JC_923
"Scientific advances should never be judged by what immediate practical use it has in the moment"
Of course it should - if you are allocating resources.
And especially if the resources are being allocated before results are in.
We may be talking past each other here.
Judgment can mean different things.
Only very rigid ideologues or religious types will suggest rejection of scientific results based on value judgment, but this edge case shouldn't blind us to prioritization being necessary.
If we don't acknowledge prioritization up front it will happen behind the scenes steered by power brokers in an undemocratic way.
Why do you think so much research is being conducted in areas like material science rather than sustainability of ecological webs or mental health?
Because material science is more inherently sciency?
I think not.
Edit: Note that I'm _not_ arguing that only 'useful' research should be given a go-ahead.
Just that we should debate what research should be prioritized and what proportion should be blue sky research.
At the moment we have both too little blue sky research _and_ too little practical research useful for most people and society as a whole.
As a republican American, I have a layman's understanding of the science and fully accept the notion that climate change is real and caused by human pollution. However I do not agree to authoritative pushes for social and economic change which I do not believe will address the problem at a reasonable cost to human life or quality of life. For example, forcing everyone to use hybrid vehicles using carbon heavy manufacturing processes, or not eating meat, or subsidizing solar arrays (without improving energy storage) or any one of a vast array of idiotic ideas preferred by the left. We need to spend large sums of money on research and development and create a ton of new nuclear plants in the meantime. Anything else is a half measure or less that falls way short of solving the problem (and in fact takes money and energy away from real solution attempts) that we do to simply say we did something.
To be fair, there are a lot of republicans (and I'm actually a libertarian just part of the coalition to keep my country from becoming consumed by the cancer of socialism) that are bat shit insane and are flat earth level science deniers. I have a degree in math and physics and love science more than just about anything, so I'm not like the others. These people are indeed to be mocked. However, scientists should look in the mirror for why politics have such a heavy hand to play in people's desire to listen to them - if you call sociology a science and claim it tells us we should pretend there's no such thing as male or female, and to castrate angsty teenagers - then it's not surprising no one trusts you. The social sciences (and the humanities postmodernism movement) have ruined the reputation of academia and invalidated the appeal to authority that is required to communicate with the uneducated.
TLDR; republican here, all for doing things that solve the problem (massive increase to research, build a ton of nuclear power), heavily against performative nonsense that gives the state more authority and doesn't solve the actual problem. Also maybe politics would leave science if science left politics - i.e. stop calling propaganda pseudoscience science and you will be trusted more
I remember when catalytic converters where brought in to change car exhaust from carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, a good thing FOR PLANTS !! Now 30 or 40 years later we have too much carbon dioxide !! Now we must change to EV'S .
Cobalt slave mines are nice too
*were* brought in
I agree if a solution to a problem just causes another problem, then the right thing to do is to ignore both problems.
Holy smokes!! No, catalytic converters did not increase carbon dioxide. It was there all along.
Catalytic converters did reduce several other things in car exhaust. These things were and still are highly toxic and carcinogenic. But thanks to catalytic converters, there's less of them in the air we all breathe.
And yes, we must change to EVs, because of the carbon dioxide that comes out of ALL gasoline and diesel powered vehicles - with or without catalytic converters.
@@bark2931It's funny how some people got turned into environmentalists overnight, just because the propagandists they listen to decided that would be a good way to make EVs look bad.
I didn't hear you crying those crocodile tears about cobalt miners when the cobalt was only being used for refining oil and making the special alloys used in the turbines of gas fired power plants. But yeah, that's what cobalt was used for, for decades. And still is!! And not a peep from you about any of that.
Of course, your silence about that is understandable, because those propagandists you listen to never told you about it.
And I suppose you're also unaware that about half the EVs being sold today have LFP type batteries, which use no cobalt. Within a few years, it's gonna be about 75% of EVs will have no cobalt.
Meanwhile, every gallon of gas you will ever burn will be refined using cobalt.
Most people don't base their belief in climate change or human-caused climate change on the actual evidence. Rather, they base it on authorities. After all, most of us are not scientists, and we don't read scientific literature. We just watch science news channels or hear about "the science" in the media. Americans just happen to be very skeptical of authorities, especially when politics are involved, which they very much are when it comes to climate change.
It was reading the scientific literature back in the 1990s and that convinced me that the studies were being slanted to get more funding for more time on supercomputers. I didn't know much about historical climatology back then but what I knew was that they were picking time periods that showed global warming and ignoring times that didn't show warming. They were predicting global warming on the basis of models with a cell size of 300 km. Do you know how much difference there is in the climate 300 km away from here? It was ridiculous. Why would I believe what they say now?
Does nobody care that these climateers have been wrong about everything that they have predicted? Why is this science if it cannot predict anything? The answer is that it is not.
And yet, they blindly follow Drumpf, even when he's literally spouting barely coherent nonsense. Flawed argument.
This makes at least as much sense as anything in the video.
Maybe everyone should become a scientist. Would solve that issue.
Ice age deniers are amazing! “ the earth has always been 70deg” yeh right??? But I’m just a geophysicist, how would I know? The earth is greening and that is good!
Sabine, have Germans noticed we seemed to be in a rough patch in our political system. We offer to the free world a leader from two candidates: one who can barely talk at times and the other who should stop talking. We are skeptical because we think information is likely politicized. I’m a chemist, right leaning with a world view that allows for the supernatural in religion, just so you can understand my biases. It find very hard to find to get to the bottom of facts that are delivered through the political system or media. For example, on climate change I regularly see weather confused with climate, so I don’t trust those sources. And we have aggressive policy proposals but no carbon tax? I have turned to a simply rule, don’t read science from free sources, esp newspapers, buy curated articles, like Science magazine, primary source research and such. I even read books again, lots of great book reviews to help.
Thing is I can’t read it all, so I will amend that and maybe isten to you and some others who seem to hold up.
0:11 “deniers” - most online platforms silence these deniers which probably amplifies their mistrust of the system.
Only those that are loudest and spreading misinformation. Afterall its not a debate about some obscure thing, theres facts and deniers are simply wrong.
The vast majority of people are silent
@@42ZaphodB42 false. Certain chains of keywords get even your unimportant comment deleted. Silencing is complete.
yes and thats a big problem, because nothing says "you're speaking the truth" than getting censored. It's why free speech is so important. People have the right to be wrong. If they're being silenced, you will never convince them and they will never aid the cause. What's the point in silencing someone if it guarantees their adversarial stance?
Yeah, it sort of creates echo chambers for these type ouf people. They have to run to the weird corners of the web.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud. Prove me wrong.
There no such thing as a greenhouse effect:
UA-cam video: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect (Tom Shula)
1) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Questioning the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is the primordial sacrament of modern climate science. It is.
* * *
The dystopian, one-party, Orwellian, preached from kindergarten to the nursing home. The simple name of this effect and its ubiquity in culture and mainstream media leave no doubt that we are dealing here with solid and fully understood Natural Science. But how does this actually effect work?
2) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Atmospheric greenhouse effect ~0? (Applying IPCC formulas to the no-atmosphere moon. Conclusion: there is no greenhouse effect on earth.)
Min 6:xx. "Abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann model..."
3) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Saturation of the CO2-IR-Absorption
(Min 0:10) The alleged greenhouse effect of 33 degrees centigrade is the result of an improper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (black-body radiation), and that a less abusive application of this law makes the greenhouse effect almost disappear.
4) UA-cam video: Markus Ott: Convection and Thermalisation Kill The Greenhouse Effect
UA-cam video: In-Depth Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Talk: Greenhouse Effect
"Heat transport in the atmosphere... IT'S CALLED WEATHER."
UA-cam Channel: Climate Discussion Nexus.
267 videos on climate fraud, hustle, and superstition mongering
When climate modelling (I'm a bit hesitant to call it science) has developed from a handful of scientists addressing academic questions into a multi-billion "industry" both funding research and peddling remedies and mitigations for "climate change", I think the public has a right to be at least wary if not skeptical.
100% TRUE
When the climate modelling is wrong over and over again and doesn't even come close to reality (warming only 1/3rd what's predicted in best case) one can only concluded: chicken little/sky is falling.
Where do you people get this info from? A handful of scientists are doing all the climate modelling? Who then? Observations are 1/3rd of what was predicted in the best case? @@justinwhite2725
Be very sceptical because its a global scam.
Scientists are affected by "motivated reasoning" too
Any idea what the scientific method does?
Climate change = send the government more money, and we will fix it. Over time , a free people will solve the problems without destroying the earth and economy.
@@50-50_GrindWe know what study funding does.
@@50-50_Grind any idea what censorship can achieve?
Which has been increasingly severe of late.
When I six years old I watched the film Wargames. I didn't understand it. My mother and father explained what happened in the film when I asked them what the movie was about. My parents told me about the nuclear apocalypse. They explained to me what Global Thermonuclear War was and the end of the world can happen with the flick of a switch. Needless to say I was pretty terrified but looking back I was glad that Mom and Dad never sugarcoated the world and always answered my questions if I had them.
I liked the word "Thermonuclear" it was big and I understood what it ment and that always impressed my teachers at school. So when I asked my teacher at school how my desk would protect me from a thermonuclear explosion during a nuclear drillI thought that I would receive praise for asking a good question with a large word. Instead I was sent to the principal's office for "being smart" this confused me greatly because getting smart was what I was at school for and now I was in trouble.
The principal explained to me that I scared the teacher. And that I wasn't allowed to talk about global thermonuclear war in class.
I find that people don't really want to face a serious crisis until it presents itself. They would rather ignore climate change the way they have ignored the nuclear threat for years. But the truth is that kind of behaviour is why we are facing a climate change crisis in the first place. Since the industrial revolution mankind has completely ignored the impact of the pollution it has caused. And anyone who wants to speak about it has been told to shut up on numerous occasions for over two hundred years. Intelligent scientists have warned the governments of the world for two centuries only to be told to sit down, shut up, stop being smart and they were scaring people needlessly.
As a result I don't really try to bother the masses about the coming global devastation caused by the total and complete destruction of the environment this species needs to survive. But the sad truth is until someone and their dog burst into flames because they took a walk outside no one is going to care about climate change. It's futile to even try. It's like screaming at the top of your lungs to deaf people. It just wears you out and frustrates the hell out of you.
Mankind has COMPLETELY ignored pollution for since the industrial revolution???
Have you been asleep since that conversation with your teachers?
Are u familiar with any of the following? Catalytic converters? Insulation? Smoke stack scrubbers? ead free gasolne? I could go on. our water and air are far cleaner than the day u hid under your desk.
Maybe we should go back to slaughtering whales (oil) and use oil lamps again. Or we could all ride horse in our big cities, that sounds real sanitary.
Maybe if u studied physics you'd understand how the green house effect hypothesis by alarmist supposedly works. if you did, you'd understand that CO2 has nothing to do with it. It's all based large on convection and conduction through the entire atmosphere which is 99.9% nitrogen and oxgen.
The problem with heat is how little change it takes the wet bulb temperature to go from nuisense (32 degrees celcius, unable to work outdoors) to deadly (35 degrees). Right now a few places on earth occasionally reach the "deadly" theshold. But many more places are only 4 to 6 degrees below.
Why do supposed climate activists buy beach front property for tens of millions if it will be underwater in a decade (or next decade, or next-next decade) 😅
I've noticed as an Australian, while our political landscape echoes America's in many ways, it's far less tied to identity. We're less likely to adopt stances based purely on party affiliation. It does happen, of course, but not to the same extreme.
Probably the difference is the origin of US political parties: they were intentionally created by Adams and Jefferson because neither trusted the general public to elect politicians that thought the way that A. and J. wanted, so instead of leaving it easy for unaligned politicians to get involved in their political feud the both of them pushed laws that made it easier for official groups of politicians to get on the ballot than unaffiliated politicians, which meant that they only needed to then control who was allowed to run _within_ the party- until the mid-1800s, no major party allowed even general party members to vote on who would run for office, only party leaders got to make the choice.
Sean, America is a stew of cultures. Name a people, they are here. There has never been a strong ‘social contract’. My observation is that civic cohesion dissolution began after Vietnam War, and went viral in the Clinton presidency. Now the U.S. is two political tribes with scant middle ground. It’s acidic.
Australia had different genetics.
As far as climate change, it was gamed by cynical politicians to justify government expansion. This, IPCC bias, and the inchoate nature of the subject alienated half the nation. LikeCOVID it was terribly mishandled.
As for me, I identify as a Texan.
Yes, absolutely. The correct psychological phenomenon to look at is tribal psychology, as in Muzafer Sharif's Realistic Conflict Theory and the Robber's Cave Experiment.
While most people think of it as a mechanism for creating "us vs them" hatred, what is missed is how much the opposing groups create and reinforce diverging cultural behaviors and beliefs.
They are mutual reinforcing too. In Robbers Cave, the Eagles got the seed that the Rattlers swore a few times, so the Eagles policed themselves against swearing and grew a culture of being upscale, proper citizens and the Rattlers were lowlife. Conversely, the Rattlers saw themselves as streetsmart and authentic, and the Eagles were stuck-up snobs who faked being polite. They created and agreed on the underlying difference, but had different interpretations.
That is why CC deniers tend to be Republicans, and alarmists tend to be Democrats. Both extremes are wrong and harmful -- and arguably the alarmists are worse because they have political power while deniers tend to be nobodies on the internet.
To fix this problem we need to de-politicize the topic of CC. We can say that neither party has gotten it right, and we have a common cause here, so both parties will reject both deniers and alarmists, and work together on evidence-based solutions.
The reasoning is flawed. First Americans are all too familiar with charities that take money and don't use it for their stated purpose. I can name you ten off the top of my head that were raked over the coals in the press about using as little as 5% of their donations for their stated cause. I don't deny climate change, but I would keep that money for that reason alone. Very few charities are effective in their missions, and as a "do-gooder" I've seen this first hand.
Second of all the Republican areas on your map are also states that are heavily invested in mining, oil production and other industries tied to contributing to climate change. It is less likely political affiliation and more likely concern about their careers or jobs.
Sounds like someone has trouble understanding language... Nowhere in this video was it stated, that voting preferences cause these beliefs, or whatever, simply that they are correlated, which is true.
"Very few *_US based_* charities are effective in their mission"
There I fixed it for you 😊
The Red Cross here in Europe does not like to talk about their US branch at all.
It seems like you have a problem with legislation holding people and organizations accountable.
Maybe it is the (willfully?) whacky interpretation of your first amendment.
Lying and slandering can never be free speech - unless you want free reign to crooks.
"Very few *_US based_* charities are effective"
There I fixed it for you 😊
@@madshorn5826 Don't pretend that's exclusive ot the US.
too bad you didn't:
1- criticize the article at all
2- given any statistics data: what was the p value of all these differences? 60 vs 40 is not necessarily a major difference.
If everyone would read tree ring and ice core studies, then they would see the truth!
The truth won't tell you the solution, which renders your approach fruitless. It's in the dispute over the solution where the problem lies too: the environmentalists tend to push things that bear costs that the majority _won't_ support (including the majority of climate change believers), while their opposers simply oppose them without proposing an alternative.
The Truth is there's NO man made climate change. Name a period of time where the earth hasn't changed naturally? This man made climate change push is a way to tax hard working people while the morons pushing this scam enrich themselves.
I think it comes down to a combination of factors. Yes, I agree the science is confusing and not well explained, but that's the tip of the iceberg. After all, if the science is confusing, how do people make up their minds?
It's not the "facts" but rather our trust in the experts that really drives us to make the decision. Unfortunately our trust in the experts has been rather badly shaken over here in the states, but before we dive into a blackhole, let's keep it limited to how the experts have communicated with regards to climate change. The earliest memories I have of it were a combination of two things. First was Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which wasn't exactly the best presentation for the science. Second it was the news articles which all decided to adopt a singular phrase "settled science." This was a new idea to the public as even the most basic and rudimentary ideas in science get questioned. Then the scandals started rolling in.
Scientists were drummed out of the community and had their careers ruined for questioning global warming. Other scientists complained about being added to the IPCC report without their knowledge. Things really started warming up (Okay, you got me. Pun totally intended there. :)) when we hit climate gate and realized the scientists had motives other than objective fact. This effectively left the reputation of climate scientists in tatters, and that's not just my opinion. (I am biased, but still.) The entire theory had to be rebranded from "global warming" to "climate change." That's when the real fun began! At that point we were told that local temperatures could increase or decrease in response to climate change. Warm summer? Climate change! Cold winter? Climate change! It's hard to take a theory seriously when opposing predictions are suddenly proof. If any change is Climate Change, what good is the theory?
Of course motivated reasoning may have compounded this effect as alternate explanations started popping up. Arguments were put forward like the world is warming because of a natural swing from the mini ice age. Climate swings change the mammal population altering the CO2 levels, so it's not as simple as greenhouse gasses drive climate. Climate drives greenhouse gasses too! It didn't help that many of the sources of measurement were called into question. Things like why the Climate Change proponents kept insisting on using surface temperature readings when those stations were subject to urban island heat effects instead of using satellite data which gives a better overview. Why is it that the true believers wouldn't discuss nuclear energy solutions, CO2 scrubbing, or any other attempt to avert global warming? In that oh so American way, we said "The other side isn't rational, so we can't trust them!" while they said the same thing and started trying to assign motives behind some of these lines of questioning to root out climate deniers. It all just sort of snowballed.
There's more to it, but I think this is probably more than enough for a youtube comment. Hopefully that helps to answer the big question of why there's a divide.
I can point to a major part of why the environmental lobby doesn't like talking about nuclear power: the hippies shaped it! That, + NIMBY, + the various nuclear scares and scaremongering around the Cold War all tilted them against nuclear, and that hasn't really changed. Add on the news media's lack of science understanding and desire for clickbait and you have a perfect situation for promoting the wrong approach!
Last summer the media sensationalized weather reporting with big scary red numbers and record breaking heats... That were the same as a decade ago where they used green tones.
2022 was so hot I worked naked (I worked from home and I'm in Canada) because I was dropping sweat. 40 degrees Celsius. 2023 was a COLD summer compared to normal and the media was running 'record breaking heat wave'.
Literally contradicting direct experience.
The I heard the story about Arizona airport having over 100 degrees fahrenheit that summer... So you are saying the Arizona DESERT is as hot as Calgary was the year before. That doesn't seem unusual to me, sorry.
I see right through the scare tactics and it makes me numb to any of the other data because I simply can't trust that talking point.
Please don't quote psychologists they have done more harm to society then most. High iq can be very dangerous
No.
As an outsider, its obvious that the rational people need to take rhe climate issue out of the democratic party & present it as an independent issue as much as possible.
You can't trust either parties anyway.
Yes both side have the same end point...transferring your tax into their pockets...
@@manoo422 : I'm sure that's their _secondary_ goal. Their _primary_ goal is at this point clearly just to prance around like roosters that just got feather implants...
_FROM PEACOCKS._
@@absalomdraconis They KNOW there isnt a problem to solve, they just have to put on a good show, as you say. While shuffling the money round behind the scenes back into their pockets...
Sabine, I just wanted to say that I found your channel some months ago, and saw a few. Once it became obvious that I was going to follow the channel, completion issues dictated that I start at the beginning and work forward through present. So, the last several months have been a long ten years!
Today is blessed, as it is the first time that I've ever seen the channel while it was current. Thanks.
Same with me, just a year ago. I hope you discovered her music vids too.
Not yet, no working soundcard. I thought I'd look around now on the internet for a source... any favorites to recommend?@@Thomas-gk42
There's a simpler correlation; rural vs urban.
Rural people don't care because they already live sustainably & hate the policies that force changes that are irrelevant to their way of life. Where as urban populations are easily panicked by the heat island effect.
In short, it's your problem, not theirs; but you insist they bow down to your whims & demand their resources to clean up your mess.
There is an assumption that people who chose to keep the money do not believe in climate change. Perhaps they do not believe in these organizations being able to deliver results instead, or have different priorities. Perhaps they already spent their allowance on preventing nuclear war. There is at least a couple of possible reasons why they would keep the money. Besides, giving people 20$ may have a different psychological impact as having them pay 20$ out of pocket, especially in America. My expectation is that it would be much higher than 41%, especially as you kept increasing the amount. The second conclusion of the study (political correlation) may still be valid though.
(German Accent) We must parrot the Peer Reviewed Papers!!!
Sabine your credibility is put into question with this video. Somebody like yourself should know Science is always open to debate. No one denies the climate changes or wishes not to keep a healthy environment, but plenty of serious and knowledgeable people question the alarmist theories and their motivations as well as the degree to which humans affect the climate.
The only rationality I see in the US is a practical skepticism and healthy debate distanced from political correctness.
Regardless of what you think about climate, "scientific consensus" does not equal "fact". History has proven that an enumerable number of times. Just way too many to count. So let deniers be deniers, without them, science can't go anywhere. Question everything!
Questioning everything just makes you go in circles, no? Things are "fact" until the observations no longer support those facts, in which case the model is improved or replaced by something better.
@@guy9360 If you aren't questioning, you aren't observing. You just see what fits. And no, questioning does not make you go in circles. It makes you go forward. Not questioning is a dead end of status quo.
@@apostolakisl Sooooo true. Those who are not questioning are always convinced that they are smarter, because they "follow the science" and everybody else is "denier".
I love the way you state that. it is true that if no one ever tells you you're wrong then are you ever really "right"? in the last few years, with the V that shall go unnamed here on youtube, it seems to me that the "deniers" turned out to be way more correct than the experts. just my 2 cents... (PS. i did get the vax (forced) so not complete anti-vaxer either).
@@apostolakisl I question the wisdom of your approach.
The research seems to confirm what most Americans already recognize, that climate change denialism is a political stance. In this instance Democrats accept the science and want to make legislation based on trying to fight climate change. Since the typical Democrat wants to fight it, then reflexively the typical Republican is against fighting it (as it isn't real or we can't do anything about it.) There might be examples when Republicans align with the science, and Democrats reflexively argue against the science, but in this area, anthropogenic climate change, Democrats are on the side of science.
The other point Sabine made about why worry about scientific misinformation if facts (or even false claims) don't change minds misses the point. For me, at least, I'm against misinformation not because I think it will make those that understand the science to change their minds, I'm against it because it is an excuse for those that don't want to accept the facts to refuse to do so. That is exactly why some psychologists believe that facts don't change minds. It is because "alternative facts" allow people to ignore true facts.
Doesn't the sea level rise argument make for one that is especially counter productive?! As one old enough, I remember that the argument was a core point before shift towards temperature rise and extreme weather events. It's been predicted that the sea level rise will move beaches to a line at Berlin or even beyond. (Guess may residence and age!) Nothing alike happened and that a few inches per century cause problems is rather due to the fact that so many people live close to the shoreline, especially in the first world many have chosen to do so. Obviously climate change and sea level do not correlate as simple as researcher thought they would. But how to leave an impression without dramatic predictions?! - And how to deal with those predictions, when they fail to appear?!
Instead of ever again fighting over who's claiming or denying what, we need to move the discussion to what could _reasonably_ be done, where "reasonably" means without foreseeably destroying societies. - Even if perhaps nothing could be done without completely giving up what could be called an average level of living standards, that must be named and addressed. I am afraid that some if not even many of the so called "denier" feel that what is demanded in the name of "climate rescue" leaves the impression of questionable impact towards the goal, or even may cause "suicide in fear of death" in terms of society.
Btw: Germans researching in this subject on Americans is ... not necessary!
"And how to deal with those predictions, when they fail to appear?!"
Ignore the failed predictions, update the year, give it another 10 to 20 years and repeat the prediction.
Sea level rise is accelerating due to Climate Change. Nerem - Sea level rise - PNAS. Dangendorf - Persistent Acceleration - Nature Journal.
@@thomasmaughan4798Sea level rise is accelerating due to Climate Change. Sea level has risen about 16 cm globally on average since 1900. It's still only 4.5 mm globally on average a year. NOAA - Tides and Currents Sea Level Rise.
@@thomasmaughan4798 LOL EXACTLY
I have a PhD in chemistry. I have read widely in climate science. Global satellite temperatures as measured by microwave proxies at various atmospheric depths have drifted upwards by a statistically meaningful value since 1980. I have found that climate activists have completely distorted the science of climate, in many cases reversing trends that have been reported in peer reviewed literature (wildfires, floods, droughts, severe storms, US tornadoes.....) to make them seem catastrophically bad. To put it bluntly, activists, whom the public will likely encounter rather than real scientists toiling away in academia, invent stuff. Most of the public will read about the flurry of fake activist news, and be completely unaware of the scientific papers contradicting the activist pronouncements. In my case "climate change denial" is actually denial of activist pseudofacts and catastrophist garbage. Could it be that some Americans also reject activist fabrications and have actually looked at real data, because they have more access to scientific facts online?
Americans are actually duped by climate misinformation routinely reported by Fox News. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy, and sits on their board.
I DON’T have a PhD in anything! But I am certain that if I did, I would not feel so insecure as to preface my OPINIONS such. Science is messy, frustrating and always in a state of flux. It is also the ONLY human endeavour to be reliably self-correcting. Don’t piss away the gifts of the Age of Enlightenment, you are not that clever!
The catastrophists coincidentally want all climate action to be done by paying them boatloads of grants to take private jets to the Paris Accords where they can be very important and control the economy for others. But sure, people who disagree JUST hate the planet, they don't have deep-seated concerns about the means of the Climate Lobby not resulting in improving environmental health at all but lining their own pockets along the way.
Some skeptics still refuse to believe the arctic has been ice free during the summer months since 2014,leading to the sad demise,and eventual extinction of the poor polar bears.
denial of such facts are unforgivable
The climate has been warming for ten thousand years. If we spent one hundred trillion dollars to fight climate change, the best we could expect would be to slow the rate of change. Prior to spending one hundred trillion dollars, the USA would be bankrupt. No more social security, food stamps, government retirements, health care, repairs to roads and bridges and no more government jobs. Guess what? The climate would still be warming. The power grid would fail, water distribution would fail, and the supply chain would no longer exist. Most people in the US would starve to death. Perhaps we should consider adapting to climate change instead of trying to fight it!
You are proof of why climate deniers exist, bc you put together things that have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, warning does happen naturally, over 20,000 year periods. It is a 20k cooling, then 20k warming.
But natural warming happens slowly, it is measurable, well known. The problem is in the last 100 yrs we have seen warming that would be thousands of years of natural warming, and it is accelerating. What ppl like yourself dont understand is the effect on climate is not linear, we can hit a point where climate goes totally chaotic. We already see it, tornadoes in winter, massive droughts then massive floods. We see winters where plants are blooming in February, other places are seeing crazy freezes.
The root cause is fossil fuels, whose use is still increasing. We should have been off of them a long time ago.
Climate denial is coming right from the oil industry and the GOP, bc it is big dollars. Texas without oil is a third world county, 80% of its gdp is oil. We yell about Islamic terrorism,but if oil was worthless terrorism would go away, Iran would be a smoking ruin and a Russia wouldn't have a lot to pee in..
It goes more like up and then down in cycles. And some of the bumps were even more steep than now,
"if oil was worthless terrorism would go away"
This is a true gem of Alarmist thinking. Thank you.
We're already bankrupt and the government thinks we can spend our way out of bankruptcy. That's a real problem unlike worrying about what the climate is going to be in 50 years so nobody wants to address it. We'll probably need warmer weather when we run out of money. Sleeping on a warm sidewalk beats sleeping on a cold sidewalk any day.
“Motivated reasoning” Is a two-way street. Funding “science” that says the government needs to take over any endeavor that requires any energy is quite the boon for anyone running a government.
In mathematical terms:
A implies B
I don't like B
Therefore, I don't believe A.
There was an experiment in motivated reasoning where the researchers got a group of conservatives and divided them into two groups. One got a presentation on the reality of climate change and how the solution is to tax carbon and subsidize renewables. The other group got a presentation with the same climate science but the conclusion was that we should reduce regulatory hurdles for nuclear power.
The nuclear power group was far more likely to be convinced of the reality of climate change. The policy proposal fit better with their worldview.
What was the average rate of sealevel rise between 14000 years ago and 7000 years ago? What is the average rate of rise over the last 150 years? What was the global average temperature during the hotttest portion of the Cretaceous period?
You as a science should never call anyone a denier, because it is cause stigmatization and closes the debate and search for new information. It causes a obstacle for future science when you try to use ruler technique to minimize people with a different opinion/theory. Use argument and not namecalling in a debate. I think it is reasonable to be critical to the group that uses name-calling.
You are not presenting the "facts" in a good way by calling them deniers.
I’m a mature environmental science student. I don’t use vaccines any more. Not anti it, some useful, some negligible… just believe my body my choice. Everyone should be free to decide what goes in their body based on their individual circumstances. As long as you do the objective research and way up the risk benefits. I don’t understand the need for so much dogma around it. But expecting the judgement nevertheless.
Writing vac'cine on a bottle of untested gunge doesnt make it a vac'cine!!
But.. but.. the science! lol. Good on ya, seeing through the BS.
Believing climate science is one thing, but to act on what is prescribed as the "solution" is altogether a different exercise. For one, if i see someone advocating for net zero carbon is flying a private jet to an exclusive skiresort so that he could preach about the science in front of others who also fly private jets to get there, i would have reservation about the imminent threats. The science may or may not be correct in predicting the future of climate. Those who claim they know for sure are definitely frauds.
On the other hand: if we keep hiding behind the blame game, we won't ever make a move. We will always find someone to blame as a reason not to do any change.
I don't see how people being hypocrites somehow invalidates the problem
That’s a really silly way to think about it. Yes those people are sleaze balls, it’s called greenwashing. Obviously the people you describe have extreme gains to be made by actively lobbying against climate change, but need to keep up good PR with their public. So they say they support climate change, as a PR strategy. They’ll put a nice inspirational quote on their website or something, while continuing to lobby against it. And use private jets to an exclusive ski resort to give a nice bullshit speech.
That does not mean the threat is not real. The overwhelming consensus of experts on the issue agree that it is real, already causing harm and increased detriments to our society because of it are imminent. No one is advocating for climate change because some because some ghoulish CEO says it’s good. It’s because there is a scientific consensus on the urgency of the issue. And those sleezeballs need to pretend that they give a shit otherwise the public will turn on them more than they have.
Those who claim they know WHAT? The facts? The cause? The solution?
And why are they "definitely frauds"? Why not hipocrites or just idiots?
@@guy9360 Doesn’t invalidate the problem, but covers it in haze. Enough hypocrites preaching it like a religion creates a reality of “belief” rather than scientific study.
Not believing in giving unlimited power and money to a movement led by people who fly around in private jets and tell others to eat bugs is not completely irrational...
It´s not about the failures of peoiple, it´s about facts. Would you deny reality because the people who tell you about it are not your taste?
@@Thomas-gk42 The 'facts' are that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as measured daily at Mauna Loa and other locations, are growing at an increasing rate with no obvious effect from any of the multi trillion dollar actions taken, and that the people with the largest carbon dioxide footprints have clearly stated that they have no intention of changing their behaviors. And to correct your statement, these people are not the ones who "tell you about it", they are the ones that devise policies. These policies have been measurably ineffective and they have so little belief in them that they exclude themselves from being bound by them. Think of them as modern day indulgences. Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
@@ats89117I agree
They are deniers too.
Most of the 20% of skeptics believe the consensus is reached by motivated reasoning. This is the most highly correlated factor.
Source: money
I would like to see you debate or otherwise address some of these rational Americans such as Tony Heller, or William Happer.
John Clauser, Richard Lindzen, Steven Koonin, John Christy, Willie Soon....
In the US we have a large amount of big oil companies paying for a lot of disinformation.
All you have to do is tell a bunch of people that by accepting the idea of climate change they are just a bunch of pussy hippies.
Exactly, you don't even have to argue or "debate" the science.
I love the science communication you do, Sabine, but please don't oversaturate us with the Videos. It's good to have breaks.
Yeah, nah... That's not how indoctrination works. Shill Sabine Horsendfeeler took thirty pieces of silver and accepted her treacherous mission to push the Globalist Agenda so I'm afraid you will have to put up with her proliferation of her religious dogma.
Enjoy and don't forget that it's _your_ fault that the world is changing and nothing whatsoever to do with the millions of tons of ordnance being exploded in Europe and the Middle-East.
Do your kids a huge favour; _don't have any!_
Einstein denied the classical view of gravity. He was a denier. Calling everyone a denier is anti scientific
No
She's not calling everyone a denier. Did you even bother to watch the video?
I saw that study. I had two thoughts - $20 is peanuts. Try it with real money. Second thought was, tell people they'll have to pay $1 a more per gallon for gas. Put another way, their independent variable didn't really constitute a test. It was too trivial and in a dimension that wasn't really related to the question.
Sabine I love you, your videos are great.
BUT as a scientist - or portraying oneself as believing in science, then one must also QUALIFY the statement.
Asking 100 ppl if they believe in climate change will properly be interpreted to mean 99 different things, with 99 differing contextual associations.
This poll is unscientific my friend. Happy to speak further if you desire - cheers!
I agree, the study design has strong limitations. I'd be careful interpreting the results. But you also have to concede that it's very hard to design such studies in a way that such problems can be eliminated. It's in the nature of the scientific field to be quite imprecise.
All 100 people ought to believe in climate change. Climate has never not changed. It wouldn't even be a word unless it changed and was noticeable.
Maybe we should praise the study for its high efficiency. With the minimal possible effort it showed what it was intended to show. Modern science ...
“ There is a cult of ignorance in the United States and there always has been. The strain of anti intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge “ Isaac Asimov.
That is the same cult that doesn't know the earth is CO2 starved.
Or in less words , America has a Woke aka ignorance issues in the intellectualism !
I think it has to do with how American society is so incredibly saturated with distractions and overwhelmingly fast-paced. Individual reasoning takes time/energy and I think Americans feel like it's more expedient to just "trust" the narrative of their chosen social/political group rather than think things through for themselves.
When free speech is allowed to propagate, ideas get discussed openly, and intelligent consensus is wrought.
lots of people think of climate change as climate catastrophe
Whether it's one or the other depends heavily on where in the world you live.
28% is 18+ out of 8.1 billion 😢, it is mean as 91% birth rate population will be 15 billion by 2050😢, The current population of India in 2024 is 1,441,719,852, a 0.92% increase from 2023. The population of India in 2023 was 1,428,627,663, a 0.81% increase from 2022. The population of India in 2022 was 1,417,173,173, a 0.68% increase from 2021.
Eco+ nomy, nomy is human activities, so less eco more nomy indicates upcoming collapse and horrible things 😢
67% ecology destroyed, 98.97% biodiversity totally destroyed, 99.95% animal species gone extinct, 78.79% fungus species gone extinct, fungus are medicine for trees, so trees are no more immune from micro life infections, human creatures already acquired 85% land of soil on earth, 21% drinking water river got dried 😢, 2022 birth rate was 88%, 2023 91%, ecology is immune system of earth, biodiversity is nurvurs system of earth 😢, as trees are not immune from micro life infections, all green animals wil face horrible disease soon,
2025 fst cat 6 hurricane landfall 😢
2035 cat7 as temperature will be 62°c
2055 cat 8 temperature will be 65°c and 39% drinking water river will dry totally 😢
2075 fst cat 9 hurricanes will landfall 55%drinking water river will dry with 89% ecology destruction 😢
2475 Highest temperature will be 97°c 😢
Please give rest to planet 😢
I hope my knowledge and love can protect earth, knowledge is Power and love is solution,all boys can apply for my boyfriendship, minimum 10 years relationship required to be my husband, knowledge is knowing with ledger and love is creatures like to do most naturally.
"most of them misunderstand the science". No, not really. Instead, most of them understand, that scientists are motivated by money, the need to survive and to publish papers and all that can only happen if they comply with the mainstream "narrative" and obtain funding, which is conditional upon political priorities. So it's not that we do not understand science, rather, we do not trust scientists, politicians and the mainstream media. What most of us think is 1: Climate has always changed and always will. 2: Human activity does have SOME impact on climate. 3: CO2 has immensely beneficial effects on Earth and all living creatures on it. 4: There is NO climate crisis.
Climate "science" is what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science". It looks like science, it dresses in the clothes of science (complicated graphs, statistical analysis, conferences, computer models) but it lacks the willingness of science to disprove its own hypotheses - instead it looks for evidence to support the preconceptions of its practionners.
There is ample evidence of this: "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline", climate models 'validated' by the fact that their output agrees with other climate models, the cancelling of climate scientists who do not endorse the narrative (example: Judith Curry), the exaggerated claims of its scientists ('Our children will not know what snow is', 'most of the beaches of the East coast of the US will have disappeared by 2020'...)
They are in denial about how "science" can be corrupted by money and political motivations, and so they get routinely misled off a cliff. Covid was a perfect example of that, and many are still in denial about that too.
@nicolasgirard2808Conservatives are funded by small donors primarily. Democrat funders however frequently fund anti-Trump candidates (Nikki Haley) on the Republican side . Democrats on the other hand get 3 times more money from big business. Todays Democrats are no longer the people's party, because they have been bought off by big business, lock stock and burrell. Every act of the current Democrat regime is harmful to the American people.
@nicolasgirard2808 Not at all. The problem is that those with opposing views usually get fired and that there is much more money for the mainstream research than for any alternative paths. As a result, many scientists don't want to sacrifice their careers for the honesty and rather do research in other fields or do only studies that have no real value but get results acceptable for their employer.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. Both political position and position on climate change are based on ones capacity of critical thinking. It's as simple as that.
critical thinking and american politics? I seriously hope that was meant as sarcasm.
Republicans and Americans, in general, didn't buy into global warming at the onset because it's "spokesperson" was Al Gore, the former Democratic presidential contender. He isn't a likable guy and comes off as a dullard.
I know the GW community didn't pick Al Gore, but I really believe his involvement was detrimental.
The problem I have is that if you question anything about the "popular" climate change position you are labeled a "denier" which is ridiculous. Science requires that we question things.
Yes, as long as you don't bring up age old big-oil-thinktank "questions"
Science is done by scientists, not by non-scientists. You become a scientist by beginning a scientific career, i.e. studying something in detail over many years as a full-time job. You DON'T become a scientist by reading about stuff for an hour or so! I don't know where you got the impression that science is done by the public, or that the public has the responsibility to question the science, or that science has a responsibility to explain everything to the public. Normally, neither does the public care about science, nor do scientists explain their stuff to the public. Of course there are exceptions, but none are as extreme as in the field of climate science. The topic has been politicized, and because of that every idiot thinks he's got the brains and the mission to become a climate scientist himself!
Nah that’s not true at all. That’s something stupid people say to make themselves feel better.
@@danielh.9010 Well that is a remarkably egotistical point of view. Everyone is responsible to question and pursue truth. If you really have the truth and understand it you can explain it to anyone. I forget which scientist said that but I took it to heart. I have worked with many scientists that I would not trust.
@@EngineersFearIf they are age old questions then the answer should be readily available and easily understood. Any question, while not necessarily useful, should be allowed to be asked.
Most of us are clear that the weather patterns we were used to have changed. But it's not clear to us what happened or is happening. That the cause is the activity of human beings is possible, but there is a lot of confusion due to the involvement of politicians, especially those currently in the UN. It is clear that there are commercial and political interests involved in the explanation and in the solutions. Trust has been lost even in their advisors, scientists are mentioned a lot, but nothing is said about engineers, scientists do not provide solutions, Engineers do.
More than a dozen UN paid scientists quit in disgust, calling them a giant anti-science fraud.
Engineers don't get mentioned because the confusion isn't really from the UN, it's from the media and politicians, and neither of those two groups gains anything they want from getting engineers involved: instead the media and politicians get confused, and a problem they like to yell about disappears because it got a solution.
I have found in my life that people come to different conclusions from the same facts based on axioms that they hold to be true. This is true in climate change, gender ideology, systemic racism etc. This is even more complicated when said "fact" is just a soundbite, so easy to accept or dismiss based on your previous beliefs because there is no proof included. Maybe a discussion of what our axiomatic beliefs are would shine light on our differences, but people rarely discuss those as the whole point of an axiom is that it is obvious and taken as true.
Why would axioms be obvious? I'm math they are not.
I have generally found it to be less direct than that, because the "axioms" are _usually_ indirectly involved than directly involved.
For example, on the abortion subject, one side might ask "is it human", while the other side might ask "is it conscious". I'd guess you can tell which side is which just from the question. The questions that you think are important, and therefore ask, alter the answer that you get, and thus the stance that you take. Pay attention to the media, and eventually you notice them giving away their own bias just from what questions they think are interesting enough to ask...
This is probably true for some subset of people, but broadly speaking I think you are assigning rationality where it effectively does not exist.
Most people do not alter their beliefs or the things they say with reference to any semblance of a rational process because humans are not rational by default (self included)
The recent failure of "Science" regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID Vaccines does not inspire many in believing the science of climate change.
Also, about origin and treatment - it even involved censorship. Now we know how long it takes before conspiracy theory becomes a fact.
wtf are you talking about? the covid vaccine was highly successful.
The Health Mister for my province emplored pregnant and nursing women to get it, saying it was 'safe and effective' for them.
The very next day Health Canada put out their official authorization (not just emergency but full authorization)and that paper said that the effects for pregnant and nursing women were still unknown.
I was on the 'wait and see' fence waiting for long term data - but that was the moment when I spooked out of any of that. Dr Hinshae ought to have known they were unknown and shouldn't have been claiming they were safe without data.
I was lucky in that I have a registered nurse neighbor and my doctor both did not think the vaccine was safe or effective
Do you have data that they are ineffective?
Facts don't change minds taken out of context doesn't seem to make sense, but psychologically it takes a mind that is open to learning new facts, and lots of people's minds are closed because the social cost is too high, which is where the concept comes into play. Not everyone is cut out to be a scientist, or be a life long learner. I doubt Sabine will see this comment, but if someone who actually talks to her does, please forward it to her. I'm a retired cognitive behavioural therapist speaking from my knowledge base however limited it may be, it's still better than no foundation at all.
I'm not actually certain what you were trying to say with that first sentence? Regardless, I'll point out that the stereotypical sources I've seen on the climate change subject have been twisted to some obviously unreasonable stance regardless of which side they've been on. The environmentalists reliably prefer reduced consumption even though that hasn't worked in all the years since Carter, and solar + wind although the sources I've seen reliably say that won't work without greatly reduced consumption (read the first part of this sentence again); meanwhile, the deniers reliably reject the environmentalist simply because it comes from environmentalists (a group they've come to associate with lots of demands and anywhere from little to _negative_ results).
When this is what is readily available, rejecting the opposing side becomes justifiable.
. @absalomdraconis All I can say, re-read my comment again. All I said was that changing opinions with facts is harder than it looks.
The rest of the argument you seem to be making is not my concern here as any opinion I have is in the bigger scheme of things irrelevant.
If the solution to climate change weren't always, "give up food ways older than homo sapiens, give up your rights, give government more power, and spend more money we don't have," I think the reception to climate discussions would be very different. A lot of climate advocates don't realize how steep a hill they have to climb thanks to 40 years of inaccurate predictions. It doesn't matter if the prediction is right this time, folks aren't going to just believe it because you have a couple fancy graphs and the backing of some academics. The old predictions had those too.
I mean, I am willing to go along with it either way because there are no fossil fuels in space... we're going to need this technology regardless of who is correct, and I view the imperative to become truly spacefaring as critical.
Can i see these inaccurate predictions? I’m genuinely curious about this piece of information.
@@terrablaze3387 If you have been around for a while, you will remember the predictions from the 1970s, when the biggest crisis was that we were going to cause global cooling. Literally, they were predicting doom by anthropogenic ice age. I have lost track of the number of times we passed the dates where the ice caps were supposed to be totally melted regardless of any action we took.
I'm not saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing, but the science is not and never has been as precise as it is portrayed to be. I saw reports the other day which show that things are far WORSE than we previously believed because they plugged a slightly different value for a single synthetic constant governing sensitivity in the models, and the results were basically "We're screwed." Is that correct? Who knows? The thing we were told five minutes before was unquestionable gospel, "the science was settled," how can this new thing be so different if that's the case?
The problem with these surveys is that you need to define the question. If someone asked me “Is climate change happening and is it caused by humans?” My answer would be a qualified “yes”. Of course climate change is happening (it always is) and human emissions have to have some effect. I just happen to believe it’s not a problem. ECS looks to be at most around 1 degree or slightly higher based on actual climate data (not models) and that’s overall beneficial. The models are clearly running way too hot and it’s not too surprising if you understand anything about them. Am I a believer, a skeptic or a “denier”?
Some would say that you are denier and others that you are realist.
Yes we are an interesting bunch over here. Thanks Dr Sabine 🤝
I think there is a serious aspect that no one seems to take into account. In the 70's we had pretty much convinced people that pollution was bad, had a commercial with a crying native american and everything. It was highly successful in changing people's behavior. Then Al Gore comes along and cranks the rhetoric to number 11 and his solution is cap and trade. And wouldn't you know it, he has a business setup that profits greatly on handling these transactions. He just needs to make it mandatory to really bring the money in. They will eventually charge you for your carbon footprint. CO2 is what your exhale, so it's a round about way of charging you for air.
Cap and trade (market based) was the republican solution to tackling air pollution. Al Gore compromised with republicans on that point and ran with it, because it was a means to accomplishing his goals.
Most things in the US is political. For example, Republicans are anti immigration. Democrats proposed a bill that would curb immigration dramatically. But because it is a Democratic bill, Republicans and Conservatives are against it.
When they stop flying private jets I will start not using my car.
Classic response of a 4 year old. Ffs
The "duh" factor on this conclusion is high. No shit it's politics.
Didn’t that also used to be known as confirmation bias?
In the US, we have a very, very polarized media ecosystem where people literally have different ideas of what basic fact is depending on political persuasion.
Right-leaning (more like libertarian or as I'd prefer, independent) Texan here,
I think there is an important cultural issue that people in Europe and even some non-right-leaning Americans (somehow) do not understand or at least pretend not to grasp.
That is that climate change at some point in the United States was either adopted by or became otherwise associated with the liberal/left both abroad and here at home.
Many of my friends and family absolutely do not trust the left/Democrat party with virtually any policy or platform (I mostly agree, with the caveat that Republican politicians also screw us - sometimes in cahoots with the other side, e.g. immigration policy.) This is exacerbated by an association with obnoxiously political American celebrities & personalities (who want us to make sacrifices but make none themselves), obnoxious people abroad (Greta...) and political and economic opportunism (Al Gore.)
I personally would often align myself in the past with climate skeptics for the sole reason that the personalities-associated with the issue and the credibility of the loudest advocates was (still is, in many cases) suspect. I have almost never doubted that it was happening, that at least most of the science was credible, etc.
There is - at least among more educated 'conservative' Americans, also probably a cynicism that the issue even can even be resolved, considering the economics involved and the disparate and often-antagonist parties around the world that would need to cooperate for that to happen..
There is probably a lot more I could say on the topic, but I've said too much for many I'm sure.
Just a 'red-state- Americans two-cents..
Very interesting comment, thanks. But it begs the next question, how do the people not see that by denying the facts they are shooting themselves in the foot in the end? I mean I can understand the motivation to piss off perceived obnoxious people but at some points the chickens come home to roost.
@@thorium222 Some GOP get it. They just do not care. They want to keep their money. If you basically do not want to spend money on solving a problem, the easiest way is to just make it a fake problem. See. It worked. What they don't get is that its a pay me now, or pay me more later plan. As long as the house and office stay at 72°F, they do not believe they are affected. Trouble with connecting the dots.
"Right-leaning (more like libertarian or as I'd prefer, independent) Texan here, ..."
I like your reply!
I don't have to agree or disagree with you. You simply stated how you feel and why you have the opinion you do. We need more of that from all of us!
> climate change at some point in the United States was either adopted by or became otherwise associated with the liberal/left
That concern is exactly part of the problem. "I must always oppose the left" implies that you will necessarily be required to oppose objective reality at times. Its objective so you are able to see it yourself, but because "the left" also sees it you convince yourself to deny what you're seeing purely to "pwn the libs!" despite the fact that the only one you're actually "pwning" most of the time is yourself.
This willingness of right-leaning people to deny absolutely anything just to oppose the left is the source of that "reality has a liberal bias" cliche. It's true, but kind of mixes up cause and effect. Reality just is what it is - its liberals that have a reality bias and, due to the need to oppose "the left" no matter what, conservatives find themselves with an anti-reality bias.
> This is exacerbated by an association with obnoxiously political American celebrities & personalities
That's mostly a you problem. As someone who leans left, I find the celebrities and personalities on your side equally obnoxious and for pretty much the same reason - they're saying things I don't agree with and it frustrates me that anyone pays attention to their "obvious" nonsense.
That said, you really shouldn't be paying attention to celebrities and personalities at all - 99% of them have no better clue what they're talking about than you do, on either side of the isle. They're just regurgitating the same talking points you already know. Being on TV or on UA-cam is not, in itself, a qualification for much of anything beyond the ability to stand in front of a camera.
> a cynicism that the issue even can even be resolved
That's not the same as denial. That cynicism also fully exists on the left, albeit for slightly (but not entirely) different reasons. Cynicism implies that you understand the problem but you don't believe in the solutions available. It can easily be overcome by the introduction of a better solution, or an existing solution being adopted more widely than you'd anticipated.
Denial implies a fundamental failure to understand the problem itself. Given the amount of information available (and arguably forced upon us), this is almost always an _intentional_ choice to remain ignorant. That is not something that can be overcome, generally speaking. Usually the only way someone can overcome their intentional ignorance is through personal experience, and unfortunately by the time the majority of the people have enough personal experience with climate change that they simply can no longer remain ignorant it will be far too late to do anything about it no matter how much money we're suddenly willing to throw at the problem.
_Intentional_ ignorance is a massive problem in the US (and the world more broadly), and the "I must oppose the other side no matter what!" ideology you espouse is one of the primary reasons people choose to remain ignorant.
I can tell you a big reason climate activism has become a "liberal" issue. Because the right in america is idealogically opposed to doing anything for the benefit of anyone but themselves. The idea that people should change how they live so that other people (whether its their children or people living close to the equator) can have a better life goes against their worldview. Which is one of "I got mine so fuck you"
when I was a kid and winter came everything would freeze and it would snow more the a few inches. now its mud and rain with occasional flurries. the weather is absolutely changing over a very short span of time in my opinion. I don't need other people's opinions to form my own, I can see the change with my own eyes.
AH, but WHAT causes that?
Well that's the point she is making too. It is not because people don't see it happening. They see it but choose to ignore it, and the evidence, because Politics. So basically they are saying, I should be allowed to get fried alive because it is my freedom to do so. And others with it
The problem with this "climate thing" is that the Western left wing has taken over the subject and has applied its pushy, annoying methods to it. This includes over-sell, disruption and a demand for an absolute submission to the cause.
The right wing are irritated by the antics. That is why attitude climate change has become a marker for political affiliation. (Subsequently, canny business people have risen to take advantage, by pretending to care.)
The pragmatics are that the 7 billion people who cannot afford renewables will continue to burn coal, and we will get to 600-800 PPM CO2. Then, physics will do what physics does - apply the rules without any fear or favor.
Renewable energy is cheaper than coal now.
I am an American who has doubts about climate change theory, primarily because it is not science (application of the scientific method.) "Evidence" is just a form of handwaving argument: there is no falsifiable question, no test methodology, no performance of the test, no analysis. Instead we get land and air temperatures. In a world 2/3 covered with water those are meaningless; the surface entropy is well over 99% dependent on water temperatures.
I love this channel, but I don't accept glib theories. I worked for 48 years as a troubleshooter in avionics and communications, the latter with a Fortune 100 electric company. I had a reputation for never misdiagnosing anything, although some defied diagnoses. I was not quite infallible, though: in 1975 I jumped the gun on a diagnosis of fuse failure because it had the same presentation as the very common failure from baking in the Phoenix sun. It turned out there was an intermittent transistor in the voltage regulator that increased the current draw when the unit was very hot. Maybe it would be worse now? Asking me to sign on to anthropogenic climate change theory is heresy. Superstition ain't the way.
Another problem is climate change is being used by politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats to increase taxes and control over people. If there is one thing life has taught me, you can trust politicians and bureaucrats to look out for *themselves* and not you.
Also climate scientists lost their credibility when they attacked and cancelled fellow climate scientists who disagree with their alarmist narrative.
And if "The debate is settled!!!" then why are there dozens of climate change models and not just one?
It's all hubris.
Most academics have never had a real job, where their mistakes have immediate and measurable consequences. As a result they become detached from reality and obsessed with the ideal.
Climate science relies on observations so the "method" is to fit these to the models, so why is this less scientific than other disciplines, such as astronomy or paleontology? We have millions of data points measuring global temperatures and CO2 levels measured by a standardised method and they all point in the same direction: CO2 is rising along with the global temperatures.
Furthermore we have ice core data going back more than a million years and various indirect methods to determine global temperatures. Two observations stick out 1. CO2 levels were never more than 300 ppm in the last million years until the last few decades (it is now 400+). 2. There is an irrefutable correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. All other factors, such as solar output and the earth's orbit have been taken into account.
Nay sayers think the natural variations have not been input into the models (they have), or have grossly exaggerated their impact (such as volcanoes).
Another problem is climate change is being used by politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats to increase taxes and control over people. If there is one thing life has taught me, you can trust politicians and bureaucrats to look out for *themselves* and not you.
@@Roguedeus
Also climate scientists lost their credibility when they attacked and cancelled fellow climate scientists who disagree with their alarmist narrative.
The scientists jumped the gun at the end. If you look at some of Jonathan Heidt's work on political affiliation, you would realize in the US the factors that make you more likely to be either conservative or liberal, for example.
It turns out that conservatives take in a wider number of variables in considering questions.
This suggests this is more to do with the evaluation process and less to do with political affiliation. Both the political affiliation and these traits would be a function of this different formula for evaluation criterion.
So keep taxing americans to pay for the worlds problem. Got it.
As an American... It's religion and politics and an educational system that's being manipulated by both.
But if the "consensus scientists " are biased ?
Shhhh .... that's the elephant in the room 😕
But what if other sources have much more reason to be biased?
Honestly, scientists are paid by the public to do research in a non-biased way. The system has its flaws, but there is no other institution in our human society that is less biased.
@@danielh.9010 I would have agreed with you before they started patenting knowledge and creating their own startups. Look at the history of Rwanda to see that anybody can get caught up in the media hype - even scientists. That said, my reservation is a small one "as Geronomo said to Haiawath" and overall scientists are wonderful people, especially the lovely Sabine
what a unique original perspective that you are the first person in hundreds of years of science has thought of. bravo. you are a natrual genius! wow! my gosh if only science had only thought of this issue before! wow, we're so lucky you just though of it! if only the millions and millions of scientists who have existed have ever considered this issue. we need more people like you making the decisions in our society.
What if the fire-alarm goes off and there is no fire? I wouldn't want to make a gamble with stakes that high.
What is this "bias"? How much "bias" is there? Can you quantify that? And if there is bias, how much does this affect the results? Are there enough contradictory evidence and observations to seriously still doubt the consensus?
I feel like it's more than time to accept that there is a problem and invest time and resources in finding the right ways to mitigate it.
We're at the point of congratulating people for being rational. 😞
I would probably be counted among the skeptics, but I do not consider myself a denier. Sabine hit on one of the reasons for my skepticism. The science is not explained very well. The algorithms used in the climate models certainly contain a number of assumptions. But, finding anyone to explain the algorithms much less the assumptions or reasons for making those assumptions has proven impossible. At least, it has been an unfruitful search for me. If someone can point me in the right direction to find those explanations, it would be appreciated. Without full transparency in the science, we are left to blindly accept the conclusions of the experts. That doesn't seem like a course that a rational person would follow.
Another reason for my skepticism is that mitigation efforts seem to be a complete waste of time. There is a reality that climate change activists do not seem willing to accept. China and India are two of the world's largest emitters of CO2 and their emissions are only growing. The level and growth of their emissions are so great that any reductions in emissions in the US and Europe will not have any meaningful impact on climate change.
Another reason for skepticism is that most of the efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change involve sending large sums of money from the US and Europe to third-world countries. Countries that are run by corrupt dictators who misuse the money to enrich themselves.
Like it or not, believe it or not, climate change is coming. Pointing fingers and insulting one another will only make matters more difficult. Full, honest, open transparency is the only hope we have of meeting the future successfully.
There is also problem that those who are advocating for so called "renewable energy" don't understand that energy sector based solely on intermittent sources can't fulfill energy demand and usually refuse nuclear energy. They know nothing about the subject but have very strong opinions about everything related. This includes politicians who make decisions impact others while they stay unaffected.
Climate models are quite accurate. Hausfather - Climate models - Geophysical Research Letters. America's historical CO2 emissions are greater than China's. America per capita CO2 emissions are more than double that of China's.
@@GeorgePapadopolous Models are seemingly accurate because they are fine-tuned against real temperatures. So in order to test them, you need to test something else than what they were tuned for. And as seen in many studies, they fail miserably. So, one can safely say that their temperature accuracy is rather artifact than feature.
@@remdoczl8739 Gibberish.
They can't and won't explain the assumptions because they're ad hoc and are justified because they work on a very short time scale. We know nothing about how the sun and earth and climate work on long time scales. Clouds are one of the biggest questions. They have a huge effect on weather and we have no idea how they work. They have to be included in the models so they are. Try to find somebody who can explain what they've input to the models on how clouds work.
I think we do a better job in the US of questioning authority. Perhaps this is genetic. After all, if our forebears had kowtowed to authority, they wouldn’t have needed to leave their home countries. For me, it is not so much doubting the theory of climate change but of being intensely skeptical of the proposed “solution,” which, coincidentally, tends to concentrate power in the political class and a small number of rich and powerful individuals and corporations. Oh, it also tends to not do a whole lot about the problem. So, there will always be an ongoing crisis that will demand greater and greater governmental interference in our lives to address it. Isn’t that convenient?
Not really at all actually. American conservatives absolutely love authority and power. Look at "back the blue" and the whole love for the military and governmental power. Mostly they just want "rules for thee but not for me"
There is nothing convenient at all about facts and science. There is just some uneducated racist yokels stuck in the 18th century wringing their hands over their local oil baron losing 5% profit in the future. Its sad and really the Christian right is entirely to blame
It is more likely because in EU, people don't get alternative views in their native languages - mostly because the lack of 1A and due to many "disinfo" related regulations (censorship).
It surely has nothing to do with climatologists ignoring scientific method and using non-scientific arguments as their first and last resort.
"Climate change denier" is an odd phrase for a scientist to use when referring to people who probably agree that the climate is changing but just don't agree that less-reliable energy is the answer. I expect a little more precision. Maybe when the global elites stop globe-trotting the planet in their private jets we can revisit the topic. In the mean time, how 'bout a study of the percentage of Tesla owners who have gas-powered backup generators at their house(s).
On the other hand I know other people who believe that climate change is not human caused. Shall we simply call them all "science deniers"? Or would that lump them in with flat earthers which would only make matters worse? We can fragment opinions even smaller, but then they become impossible to study, as we now have to compare "climate change deniers" with "human caused climate change deniers" and "people who believe climate change is real and human caused but prefer to do nothing until a solution they're convinced by comes along"?
"I expect a little more precision."
a bit more *science* in other words ;-)
@@KristopherNoronha This is quite an interesting take on my post. Of course, the simple answer is not to call people "climate change deniers" when it is inaccurate. By any chance do you own a Tesla and also have a gas-powered backup generator at your house(s)?
For a prime example of Motivated Reasoning, please refer to the comments section of this video.
Said the sheep.
@@manoo422 you probably love cops dont you?
Science only tell us facts, not opinions.
It's science that determines whether the climate change actually happening and human causing that.
On the other hand, what kind of actions we should take when facing the climate change is the matter of the politics, rather than science.
exactly!
Science is not a dogmatic thing
Seemed a little one-sided to me. Nothing about all the nutjob Climate Alarmists?
She's one of them - this channel was an orchestrated and systematic operation to infiltrate skeptical communities online.
Why is this always a one-way street? 'Motivated reasoning' is what all people are doing to hold on a belief system they are convinced of. And with all respect, Ms Hossenfelder: saying climate change is happening and is caused solely by humans is a very un-scientific thing to say.
tell me you dont know how to read a graph without telling me you dont know how to read a graph
OMG! So witty! Tell me you need to push your ego into a superiority frenzy without telling me.. bla bla bla. And I ain't a denier you fool. @@southwestedc
@@Jambu96 idiot conservative dragging the rest of society down with you
@southwestedc tell me how the graph proves cause and effect.
In the US this is largely a political issue instead of a scientific issue, which is a common view amongst many global issues for the American right. Pretty much any issue one can think of has been made into something politically fueled so the right can keep blaming the left and retaining their voters. I'm sure this happens with left-leaning issues as well, but due to my household and lack of interest in politics I am only exposed to the right.
It's been often observed by me in the US that for many people, even those who tend to be pretty rational; the facts don't matter it's who says them. And more importantly it's what facts are approved by the side you follow.
Facts that support the other side can always be dismissed as propaganda. "Corporations and governments can easily manipulate data, so all data is capable of being wrong, and so whatever the other guys are saying, it's clearly the wrong stuff. The people I trust have shown the correct data."
And what really matters most to human beings is who's funding them. Scientists think that they're different from normal human beings based on no evidence.
Of course the facts are propoganda based on who spreads them. After all, the people spreading them mostly choose _whether_ to spread them based on if they _like_ those facts or not, making the spreaders propagandists by default.
I just wrote up a very respectful comment on your distorted presentation and you tube deleted it before I could post it. Which a of coarse confirms exactly what I was stating. A fan of yours but move on to some real science that doesn’t get censored by social media because it isn’t real science.
"censored by social media because it isn’t real science."
I often capitalize it: It isn't Real Science (tm) to convey the idea that Real Science is approved for human consumption; the sort of thing you find on Skeptical Science website. It is a lot like a religion.
Crackpot found
What was your critique?
I also just wrote a comment and got deleted. And it was nothing related to a critique or the video neither nothing offensive. Just a link to another Sabine's video. Sometimes youtube doesn't work well. It's not targeting your particular comment, don't take it personal.
(I'm not even sure this reply will appear)
UA-cam deleted your comment before you posted it? Usually they’re not that proactive.
Technically, we are not causing it. We are accelerating it, but not causing it. This is pretty obvious, as climate changed before humans had a say in it. So if the language of a question was: Does the climate change? my answer would be yes. If the question was: Do human activities cause climate change? my answer would be: No, not exclusively. If I can only choose yes or no, I need to choose no as a scientist. The question isn't put properly, often by ignorance, sometimes on purpose.
The language around climate change is very important, because single words can make the difference between understanding what actions are required or harmful.
It's very unlikely that someone looking all at the facts available (not in an echo chamber) would disagree with a carefully phrased statement, similar to: "Climate changes, as climate is no constant but driven by many variable factors like earth's orbit around the sun, axis orientation, sun activity, volcanic eruptions, and many more. Human activity, like releasing formerly bound carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere, has a warming effect on earth's average temperature. As we are leaving an ice age, which is not a normal climate state and is characterized by lower than normal average temperature, temperature is rising anyway. Human activity accelerates that."
But let me be clear, "humans cause (an otherwise constant) climate to change" is as much a scientific nonsense statement as "climate change doesn't exist" or "human activity has no impact on climate change".
Political motivation is definite part of it as both sides have used it as a tool to influence their voters one way or another, but its just part of the answer. I would have liked to see this study also look at people who are not republican or democrat and see which way they respond to this question... There are quite a lot of independents who think one way or the other and to get a complete picture. It would also be interesting to see what age each of these groups were as well. I find older people are much more prone to be climate deniers then younger people in the US.
Climate Denial in the US goes hand in hand with a lot of other denials. Correlation isn't automatically causation, but it is the clue that should lead you to dig deeper. 35 years ago I saw American TV adverts and couldn't believe the aggressive mendacity. Why? If it sells, it continues, but that don't make it moral or healthy. The problem has been endemic for a long long time.
While climate acceptance is mostly the feeble minded who accept everything the govt tell them with no critical reasoning what so ever...