Redefining Climate Change Denial | Patrick Belmont | TEDxUSU
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- Climate change denial has historically been defined as the overt refusal to accept the scientific understanding that climate change is happening, humans are causing it, and that it will have bad, to catastrophic, consequences for humans and the ecosystems upon which we depend. But as that viewpoint has become untenable in the face of overwhelming evidence, this talk explores the more subtle, passive forms of climate change denial that are still pervasive in the 2020s. By recognizing these passive forms of denial in our everyday lives, we enable ourselves to move past them, and begin working towards climate solutions every day. Patrick Belmont is a dad and river scientist with a rapidly shrinking carbon footprint. He thoroughly enjoys studying some things that almost nobody cares about, like how and why rivers meander, but he spends most of his time trying to solve society’s most pressing problems, like figuring out where all that mud in the Mississippi River comes from and how to reduce impacts of wildfire in the western US. And of course, he is dead serious about stopping climate change. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
great talk.
Worst of all are those who openly admit that they don't care :(
1. vote for who I say.
2. Talk about it, spread my gospel.
3. Stop buying stuff.
4. Fixing it starts with me and you......... lol... Ok boomer, great talk
@@calholli which is funny cause everybody would have said the same thing
Good speech for you and I, but he will never change hearts with his condescending tone toward brainwashed conservative types. We have to engage them, if we want to save the planet. Although, sometimes I feel like putting them in a big spaceship and sending them to a colony, far, far away. I miss kind hippies. They loved everyone, not just hippies.
@@calholli like your boomer folks who deny climate change?
@@imsohandsome I'm sure he really believes in his "climate change" agenda, as he flew to this show on a jet and polluted more in one flight than you and I combined will do in our entire lifetimes. The level of hypocrisy is unmatched.
Thank you 🙅very much
referring climate change sceptics as climate change deniers is a direct insult. Can we go back to times where every scientist was sceptical and did not insult others who have a different take on the same topic?
Is there such a thing as gravity skeptics? When there is undeniable proof of something, that means anyone who disagrees with it is a denier.
You know what's an even greater insult? Not listening to the person talking...
"Sceptics brings substantive arguments to the debate".
Making a snowball is the opposite of that.
Carl Sagan spoke of this in the Cosmos series when he spoke of Immanuel Velokovsky. While Sagan and the scientific community did not agree with Velokovsky's theory concerning the origin of the planet Venus, he was not accorded any courtesy at all against personal attacks by the scientific community.
This is such a joke. The planet is over 5 Billion years old. The climate variations over 10s of millions and 100s of millions of years is significantly higher than the past few thousand years.
Here are some facts
Atmosphere green house gases in the atmosphere are less than 0.1%. or a 10th of 1% so nil significance for heating the planet.
None of the climate models take into account the over 20,000 undersea volcanoes (guess those are irrelevant).. Guess solar flares are also irrelevant.
@@TyGuyGaming I'm sure you'll let us know when you've got proof we're still waiting!!!
I get it now. Stop driving/flying, get rid of technology, don't own/rent a home, stop using electricity, and buy nothing.
As our leaders continue to live how they want with the largest carbon footprints...
And go vegan
@@JessicaOrban3606 I'm glad you get it
Flying is most difficult problem to solve.
You can drive EV and charge it for free from your solar and be CO2 0% from transportation.
You can thermally insulate your building (house) to reduce heat losses to 20% and save the money for heating need and reduce CO2 for 80% from heating.
You use less electricity with more efficient appliances and also heat your shower and dishes water on solar for free.
You can change all light to 10 less consuming LED lights and also save money on electricity bill and reduce CO2.
You can save lot of money in the long run and save the planet.
@@MrHaje Vegan is 14% of the problem, heating in winter is above 30%, transportation 25% and electricity 25% CO2 emissions.
Great presentation on the most important challenge of our time. For a more detailed reference on the history and current situation of the "denial" system, see Michael Mann's new book "The New Climate War".
I'm currently reading that book. Mann makes the case that climate change communicators shouldn't give in to the deflection campaign of individual action. It can make it seem like it's necessary to sacrifice personal liberty which plays into conservative narratives. Belmont does talk about treating climate change as a systemic problem that requires activating the levers of democracy at the end, and he also appeals to progressive narratives by describing the injustices associated with climate change, but I'm more confused than ever on whether or not it's good messaging to encourage lifestyle modifications like flying less that are tied to people's identities.
BTW, your name sounded familiar. I think we're probably in the same advocacy circles.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is impossible. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible.
However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, in particular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable, this summer you can see a unnaturally bright sun just as we did last year. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations).
Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of Agenda 21 /2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref NESARA/GESARA) and has/is being promoted by The World Economic Forum.
'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF
In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists.
The CO2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few.
Welcome to the future!
_________
I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the Dark Ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools.
(NB: be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology.
Eg. 'It only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.'
This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. Clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).
@@doobidoo095 Just shut up. The world we live in is warming, and I see that in front of my eyes. Tell me a viable argument that isn’t that the world’s tilt is changing.
@@doobidoo095 Celcius is not a unit of energy, if you actually want to reach truth you will have to take high school physics first, but if you just want to believe something because you want to believe it go ahead, I'm not your dad
"Gore-y". I see what you did there.
And as for climate change: That's just one of the reasons why I stopped consuming animal products, as animal agriculture is a massive contributor to climate change, ocean dead zones, water waste/pollution, deforestation, species extinction, world hunger, severe illnesses like cancer and diabetes, etc.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
The time is past when humankind thought it could selfishly draw on exhaustible resources. We know now the world is not commodity.
Francois Hollande
(Former) President of the French Republic.
Sir when you put 2015 was the hottest year can say from when it was the hottest year.From 1950 or 1900 or 1800 or from 1000 AD?.What relative data are you using to say this?
Really important insights. Thank you. I think more land conservation folks will need to help support renewables.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
We can all do something to help. Great talk. Thanks.
I did. I downvoted this clown 🤡
@@theWACKIIRAQI did you even watch the video 🐑
@@Raiko01 all the way to the end. Have you?
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
How does the 'Beijing Weather Control Office' factor into climate change?
Great talk!
To the point...
Just remember-when someone owns a house that consumes twenty times more energy than yours does-it’s still totally, super climate-friendly, as long as it’s Al Gore
So now capitalism is bad?
Not the thing that that energy is produced from CO2 sources?
@@klokoloko2114 Al Gore strikes you as an advocate for capitalism? 🤔
I wonder if anyone flew to this conference..
@@arielbenjamin3253 What is the problem, fact that he have much bigger house than yours so he use more energy or that this energy is produced with sources that produce CO2?
Is it both?
@@klokoloko2114 the problem is that too many of these geniuses lecturing you on how to live your life and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them are not actually practicing what they preach
@@arielbenjamin3253 You are right. The talk actually starts with him picking up a climate expert at an airport. The expert goes on to lecture the guy (the speaker) who picks him up in an SUV! :)
I have a plan for getting back on top. Im looking for engineers, programmers, lawyers, hvac techs, and data collection techs
@TEDx, Talks probably the worst thing you could do right now is mess with bitcoin
200k by the end of the year. It'll break a million in the next few years. Conservative estimate. The rich are moving from gold to crypto as we speak to hedge against inflation
At about 3:10, he says they measured co2 coming out of a single tree's leaf.
Don't trees convert c02 into oxygen?
That's your best argument?
@@imsohandsome I think it was a legitimate question. The answer is that pretty much every living thing extrudes a little carbon.
Save Our Planet
hannel dedicated to drawing..
"Drawing is my passion, not a gift"
Great talk! and a great reminder to keep re-evaluating our personal impact and to take positive steps so we can collectively create a better future.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
Just watched SEASPIRACY. Amazing new light on Climate change, deforestation, etc..
The Fishing Industry is way ahead in destroying the world. 🌍💐
He can see the future.
Now so can you :)
He's a fear Monger extraordinaire
@@frogsoda that's not what's happening.
Inactivism? Lol he's laying it on thick.
@@frogsoda he's trying to get you to take an existential threat seriously. Doesn't seem to have worked.
Regarding technology, Green energy is also dependent on oil and gas. Or did the thought never occur to him. It's easy for him to spout off what we should do from the sidelines, how to do it is another matter, a lot harder when the rubber meets the road in policy.
Don’t agree that renewables have not displaced fossil fuels.
In some locations this has happened - for instance in South Australia.
UK is also reducing emissions by deploying a lot of offshore wind power.
Soooo... You didn't see this? 5:04 ?
@@Thor.Jorgensen yes I seen this and as I understand this is not exactly correct.
There are countries or regions where renewables allowed removal of fossil fuels.
Globally picture is different as energy needs are still growing.
People are dying from the climate and pollution
i have a capture system in my backyard. Trees
MERHABA TEBRİK EDERİM.
TEŞEKKÜR EDERİM.
So, you picked up Dr. Steven Schneider at an airport? If he had just flown in, he was just responsible for emitting hundreds of times the CO2 you used to pick him up in your SUV.
I do not drive fossil car anymore..
You can buy an EV and charge it for free on your solar roof. You will reduce you CO2 and not poison children on the street with toxic gases from fossil fuel car pipe.
@@klokoloko2114 The carbon footprint of its production is higher than yours was when driving your fossil fuel car though.
@@Hakasedess All cars need production and CO2 extra for production of an EV level up in less than 1 year of car use. Heavier car = more CO2 for production .
So, you didn't listen to the whole recording?
@@michaelohara7765 I made this comment after only the first minute of the video, but his later words also did not justify the hypocrisy and ingratitude of the person he picked up.
"Be the change" is what Gandhi said.
Redefining Climate Religion
Solving climate is not religion, it's based on scientific facts.
@@klokoloko2114 Just like religion, you did a leap of faith over the part where you are to state the facts about climate and went straight into solving it. Just like religion, the solution is money transferred to people with personal jets! Just like religion, you will believe.....!
@@meagle666 What? Is that the teachings of a sect?
@@taboovsknowledge1603 But you do not know much about climate, you just BELIEVE that you know.
This is religion!
@@klokoloko2114 I don't know any of the individual sciences that makes up climate. I do know that those pushing it have been lying for decades about it. Check into it. You won't!
Why can the satellite data and balloon data not find the rise in temperature?
What do you they can find rise in temp. They can find it.
An event of global scale will happen July 24, 2021 at 15:00GMT - the international online conference "Global Crisis. This Already Affects Everyone". We have the right to know the truth! We have a chance, uniting our efforts, to overcome the collapse of humankind together and enter the era of prosperity by building the Creative Society! On Allatra TV International UA-cam Channel.
watch cowspiracy and seaspiracy on netflix
Its extremely hard for deniers to accept that animals (we all love animals,) are going extinct, and their big truck is not good for them to own. If they could afford to shop at whole foods and buy a tesla I'm sure half of them would. so lower the prices of sustainable goods and make unsustainable be expensive. Turn the system upside down basically. I drive a v6 because it was the only car I could afford and I feel horrible but I can't afford a hybrid yet so am I a climate denier or are the polluting corporations just not paying us enough to do anything about it. I literally feel like people who live in rural areas with no jobs and no money are deniers because they see no way they can actually change their behaviors while us city folk are like... "I will go to whole foods today for lunch in my electric VW!" "I can install a tesla battery pack in my garage!" It's about economics not just denial.
How much CO2 in atmosphere is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence? Where do economists compute and report the annual depreciation of consumer junk? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994. Where is the data on the depreciation of those cars?
The whole speech seems focused from and for the developed countries,which represent a small percentage of the world. Asking for global (and drastic) solutions,requires a global approach,not only thinking in what we can do in western countries but also in the impact of those actions in the development of the developing countries,to say the least
Good talk, but I'm missing the best advice: get organised, get mobilised, hit the streets
I believe it's imperative that people with excess/sufficient monetary mobility invest in renewable systems, and SHARE with community, as so many low income/ limited mobility folks (who will likely be first affected by CC) are stuck in a small peghole of options via government (subsidized fossil fuel lobbying, cheap unhealthy non renewable materials+foods as "norms) Lack of access means lack of options, so if you have options, make the most eco friendly option possible always, no matter the cost. If you have time money and ability to redistribute your time and money, DO SO! + DIVEST YOUR STOCKS from any business that does not directly BENEFIT earth or socio-economic-environmental stability.There is no other option but to care for each other. The kids of the 60s and 70s grew up not seeing the change they demanded, and became the new gatekeepers, only interested in self preservation and their retirement accounts it seems... Millennials! Let's not let the opportunity to be radical in our community and earth care practices slip us by for fear of scarcity - dare I say, at the expense of our spring vaycay or graduation trip, Red solo cup parties and instagram pool floaties and the other social norms/benchmarks we were programmed to desire. The REAL fruit of our generation will be what we can do for each other not our Self, we are an innovative animal and creative consciousness. If humans can create this mess, we can create a way out! but it takes every one of us demanding better from our selves and the politicians and corporations who rule our systemic world. Lets get it, there's no other option. Imagine the joy when out societies care for each other and not just quarterly gains and "getting mine". I envision permaculture food forests and co-op style villages emerging from culdesacs and city apartments with green roofs and 100% solar/wind/hydro power the norm for every preexisting and existing structure. I envision Land Back in the US and restoring leadership and land management back to the indigenous communities to restore the natural resources colonizers took and continue to take daily, and I envision living minmalistically being a norm, not a trend, as we restore equity and balance to our society and selves. What do you envision?
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
China is the largest consumer of primary energy in the world, using some 141.7 exajoules in 2019. The majority of primary energy fuels is derived from fossil fuels. China’s primary energy mix has shifted from a dominant use of coal to an increase of natural gas and renewable sources. Globally, primary energy consumption has increased over the last decade, but it is expected to experience the largest growth in emerging economies like the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
Who cares?
And whom do you think China is making stuff for.... Chinese people 😂.... Yeah a portion of it for those that work at making all the stuff WE get them to make for us!!
Totally right! They are not interested on the BRIC countries (plus) role on this, they want to blame it on the West. Besides pointing this truth out would underline how Globalism is the big polluter and they want their Globalism, so they keep being the 1% rich elite.
Climate action is impossible with inequality and disunity.
I have great ideas of how to stop climate change but do not have the opportunity to act.
Do they deny climate change or do they deny there is a crisis? Someone answer please.
Some are at different stage, so both..
What is the Climate Constant you think exists? As far as I know the earth 5 Billion years has had a wildly variable climate that has never been constant. It's human ego that thinks humans are more powerful than nature.
@@MichaelBalboa Greenhouse gasses - mainly CO2, but also methane - were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Abrupt vs slow change.
Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.
But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.
Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.
So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
@@klokoloko2114 You have it all backwards. CO2 is soluble in water, so when temps increase, CO2 levels increase; and when temps fall, CO2 levels fall. You can see it by watching a glass of cold water warm to room temperature. The bubbles on the side of the glass are CO2 escaping the water as it warms. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes, not the cause.
Also, this "greenhouse effect" has never been measured in a lab, but is only assumed to exist. This is why we have so many scientists (not radiologists) believing in the GHE. They are also paid to believe it through research grants and giving insulting talks on Tedx.
@@303Scott You can see greenhouse effect in daily life you do not even need experiment in the lab to show you.
You know natural phenomenon when night sky is clear that mornings are much colder than when you have sky full of clouds?
Since clouds block infrared radiation from earth to space earth can't cool it self so fast.
I suppose you noticed this in opposite form of morning hoarfrost when night is clear that cooling is much faster.
CO2 is also GHGas but not so strong as water vapor but about 25% but enough when you increase it 50% like we did last 200 years that it will block more radiation from earth to space and earth become warmer.
Greenhouse gasses pass sun light like all gases without problem but heat radiation from earth to space CO2 blocks and when you have it more temp. goes up.
I can't wait for him to get to his "solution" to the "environmental racism"
His "solution" is the same as that of all Neomarxists of which the "climate change" brigade is part of:
Abolish capitalism and embrace communism and totalitarianism so that we will have a few hundred million dead, like in the 20th century.
A final solution to the "environmental racism" question? Uh oh, I know where this leads..
@@defendliberty1289 is that a joke? communists are doing the most co2 emissions than any other right now.
@@defendliberty1289 communism doesn't abolish racism it promotes it through propaganda. LITERALLY.
@@weesnaorc1203 I agree with you. The Neomarxists are not interested in solving raxism or environmental issues, they just use then as excuses to promote their ideologies. Murderous ideologies, that is.
Vote for socialism eh comrade?
at 3:02, CO2 goes IN to leaves on trees, it does not come out.
When you burn coal, oil and gas you introduce new carbon from that fuel into air.
SO C+ O2 from air = new gas CO2.
With burning fossil fuels you REDUCE Oxygen in air that we humans need and transform that oxygen in new gas called CO2 that is actually harmful for our breathing more you have it in air.
CO2 last million years was from 180ppm to may 300ppm and we increased it in just 150 years from 275ppm to 415ppm and is going up almost 1% per YEAR.
@@klokoloko2114 Did you know there was the greatest bio-mass and bio-diversity on Earth when CO2 was between 7000 and 9000ppm?
If you choose to believe liars, you will repeat their lies. Why would you want to be misled a moment longer than necessary...?
@@klokoloko2114 CO2 is consumed by plants. The higher the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, (from here, up to a certain point) the greater the plant growth, and the food production.
@@chimpinabowtie6913 Did you know that in 7000ppm CO2 air you would die in 1 month?
"If you choose to believe liars, you will repeat their lies."
That's what you, do repeating non scientific conclusion from those that lied to you..
@@freesk8 If CO2 is consumed by plants why is up almost 1% every year?
The Bahamas and it's Climate Realist!
"Recognize passive forms of denial" is sort of indoctrination or belongs to psychology rather than hard science.
@Hi Hi Hi Go to NASA climate about that event and see that just 10 years of humans activity will negate that and when things back to normal it will be even worse.
Max prediction of cooling from that event, source :NASA is -0.3°C and we heated planed 1.2°C
Let’s not forget we just came out of a ice age and we’re gradually increasing in global temperatures which is natural as seen in the earths historical data. More information on that, I’d suggest the ‘Randal Carlson podcast with Joe Rogan’. While I absolutely despise how company’s and governments are dealing with waste and the health of the earth and the people, I also realize that this is a complex subject which also includes the earths historical data which you need to understand to climate change topic
No, we are toward new ice age in 40 000 years from now and we should be very very slowly cooling but NO, we are very fast heating.
Sorry, but Mr Randall Carlson is a very ordinary science-denier when it comes to climate. Nothing intelligent or original.
@@klokoloko2114 I don't agree
@@anu1776 Go to NASA climate you have it online.
Vipdenier #1 - john kerry.
Climate change catastrophism is a religion, and I am a climate change atheist.
Less humans, less problems
Agreed, look at cities compared to small towns.
No, Now we have the power we have the greatest responsibility to take care of our home.
That's the goal!
Your all just a part of the problem.
@@weesnaorc1203
That's the point less people less problems
Thank you
Great. Just pick on the weakest link in your opposing team and use that to portray all of your opponents as such.
😊😊
Why didn't he say anything about animal agriculture? Being non vegan is a form of climate change denial.
That’s not the only thing the left is redefining
@@chriswyma145
And now you see the truth! They have been manipulating us, or trying to, since the 1850's
There are in my opinion for example 13 types of beliefs of climate change humans tend to vaguely formulate:
1. Climate change is solely caused by humans and industry thus only global warming exists in the entire planet history. They reject the swing effect of the planet and deny the big ice age as fake science to argue.
2. Same as 1, but who believe in Ice age, but believe it's irrelevant to climate change thus seeing humans and industry solely causing global warming to this planet.
3. Climate change is caused both by humans industry AND the swing effect. However Ice age is NOT related to the swing effect . And humans and industry add the biggest impact through global warming.
4. Same as 3, except to believe ice age IS related to the swing effect.
5. Same as 4, except that humans industry and global warming are EVENLY causing it. Not MAJORILY. They think it's 50/50
6. Same as 3, except that humans industry and global warming are EVENLY causing it. Not MAJORILY
They think it's 50/50
7. Same as 5, except that humans industry and global warming are MINORILY causing it. Not MAJORILY
Thus humans global warming are barely relevant.
8. Same as 6, except that humans industry and global warming are MINORILY causing it. Not MAJORILY
Thus humans global warming are barely relevant.
9. Humans and industry do essentially NOT cause climate change . Global warming is a myth . But they STILL do not deny the existence of climate change. They believe still there is going to be consequences for humans. The ice age theory is NOT relevant. even if climate change its not our fault, we need to prepare to survive as humans .
10. Same as 9, but believe the ice age IS relevant
11. Both climate change and global warming are myths. Believes in the ice age , but think it's irrelevant anyway. Humans have nothing to worry in the future about the planet warming up. They also believe in the mini ice age theory .
12. All theories above are myths .
13. Same as 12, only believes in the mini ice age.
So, who are you?
Wonder how he got to this lecture
Beans
Grand Solar Minimum - Global Cooling...
We are heating very fast.
@@klokoloko2114 Pretty sure that's your brain melting 🤔😃🤦
@@455buick6 Do you even know how is measured average temp. of the planet?
Has this Belmont killed Dracula yet??
Yes the speaker picked up a climate action proponent off a flight in an SUV. The whole point of the talk is him realising that was a form of passive climate change denial. All the “what about” and “don’t tell me what to do” comments here are just proving the speaker’s points about passive denial. 🤦♂️
Laying a huge guilt trip on almost everyone for failing to agree with a far-fetched, catastrophist theory....that was 20 minutes of my life that I will never get back.
Türkçe alt yazı eklemek çok mu zor bizde faydalanalım bu güzel videolardan
Betting a plane ticket he still eats beef (food climate denier)
А я русскоязычная,зачем высылать на другом языке?
Great video!
lol...He's a buzz word master mastro
This guy sounds like a preacher, more than a scientist. Replace Climate Change with God, and the irony will make you want to fly to Texas just to have a ribeye.
Isn't Texas full of people that preach about god way to much from their villas while keeping poor people from basic health care....
When can I meet you there?
I will copy my comments from before, so you can see how much I agree with you on this, and how much this is a new religion for them.
The hypocrisy of him criticizing you for the SUV when he just burned more fuel per person on his flight. It is just like Christ said with the Pharisees. Choke on a gnat, but swallow a camel whole. Why can nobody see the stupidity of these global warming claims when the people who claim to want to fight it produce more carbon dioxide than the average American citizen?
There's only one solution to climate change I can see
DiY Lifestyle ,everything you can
That's what I share about
He criticized your SUV, but flew on a polluting dragon. 🙄
Hottest year on record lmfao thats 1860!
Go to NASA climate.
1. vote for who I say.
2. Talk about it, spread my gospel.
3. Stop buying stuff.
4. Fixing it starts with me and you......... lol... Ok boomer, great talk
1. Strawman.
2. Strawman.
3. Strawman.
4. Strawman.
How about you actually address what he really says? Instead of attacking some imaginary person who didn't appear at Tedx Talks?
@@Thor.Jorgensen I read it three times and I still don't know what you said. lol.. I just summarized everything that he listed for us to do; while also admitting that he still flies jets to go place, likely private jets no doubt.How is that a strawman argument? You obviously don't know what that term means-- I didn't attempt to refute anything he said. That's just the point: He said nothing. Its all right there in the title: "Redefining climate change denial"--- his 'redefinition" was: "I too, am still the problem, so why don't you come change the world with me--- as we continue to do nothing". Its nothing more than a pep rally where we all agree that there is not hope for change, but at least we can know axiomatically what is inexorably coming. Exigency is meaningless without implementation. All I see is inaction; another decade has gone by and nothing has changed, nor will it. If the bad things they say are coming, then it is going to happen and they are coming; period. We are incapable of stopping it, just look around. There is no stopping it, that should be self evident by now.
So what is the ideal climate for this dynamic planet? The climate changes humans need to adapt. We cannot change the global climate to suit our needs, but in an attempt to it's possible to make it worse. And one could say that the deniers may have investments in fossil fuels as could climate activists have investments in renewable energy. There are too many variables that effect our climate to make any solid predictions. Be nice, don't create pollution and try and live a decent life your not here for long.
One that is stable, that do not change 9 times faster than normal natural fluctuation and one that do not have CO2 increase in air 40 times faster than natural fluctuation..
Last time this much CO2 was in air was 15 millions years ago when sea level was 20 feet higher.
@@klokoloko2114 interesting,although I think the earth is far from stable? Normal natural fluctuations, I wonder what normal is? I'm guessing solar activity, levels of cosmic radiation and other external factors play a part in the earth's climate changes over millions of years? not to mention mass extinction level events that would of drastically changed climate at an extraordinary rate. Very interesting will have to read up more on this.
مفيش عرب
There are 150 climate change deniers in the audience...
And in the comments
Most of them are in comment section liking each others negative and fake(misleading) point.
That are mostly created from fossil fuel lobby to saw doubt and skepticism about man made climate change.
stop travelling as a scientist, go get a real job and stop preaching to people about your beliefs. we'll stick to actual science
Are you a flat earther?
@@SuperAKIBHUSSAIN absolutely not. I believe the climate has been changing for 3.5 billion years and will continue to change as it alway has and will do until our sun goes super Nova. man is responsible for pollution and population but not global warming. global warming followed by global cooling just just how it happens. it's out of our control, unless you are God Almighty? are you?
@@timothyb175 Natural climate change is very slow, this man made change is very fast and CO2 is going up extremely fast.
Global cooling and global heating last million years happened less than 10 times and those cycles are almost 100 000 years long.
God said be good shepherd of your land, we are definitely not.
@@timothyb175 Look at the rate of the changes mate, it's going too fast. It's not natural.
@@dwipaal-farisi4107 have you actually looked at average global temperature for the last few years? Try actually looking at the data. If you pay attention to the latest press releases on this stuff it was recently admitted that all the global warming simulations and subsequent predictions over the last few years haven't lined up with the propaganda. But of course, instead of accepting that they might be overestimating the rate and human impact of climate change, It was instead explained that it must be a previously unknown 40 year el nino like cycle on a cooling trend. That's why global temperatures are not increasing like they've predicted. That's a huge leap of logic just to continue to unquestionably blame humanity..
Economics is the answer. Your speech is an interesting, if useless talk all told. Guilting people into changing their opinions against their interests isn’t very smart. Your moral high ground will not help your cause.
The argument needs to be economics. The replacement technology must be better than what it is replacing. And so we are at the start of that adoption S curve with mobility and energy. Solar and Wind are now the cheapest power sources and with hydro and battery they will take the lead.
The engineers will solve our energy future. Get out of the way with your guilt trip, its not helping.
Solar will have its place in the Sun, as the costs of solar cells decline with technology improvements and production efficiencies improve, and as you noted battery improvements take place. Solar is advantaged because it is a distributed generation that can be installed in homes, and commercial and industrial locations as well as “solar farms” which are also geographically distributed. That said solar is still not an economical power source and is is only viable with tax credits, a subsidy, and on the grid by forcing consumers to pay highly inflated prices for mandated purchases os “clean” power.
Windmill power is a gigantic scam and a blight on natural landscapes and will _never_ be an economic or environmental benefit, which exist only from huge tax subsidies, forced purchases at exorbitant prices, and failure to make wind generators pay the incremental costs of their distribution, and the costs of standby capacity for their highly intermittent production.
The planet will be fine , people will be f'ed focusing on destructing path and problems ;)
Despite the overly american segment where people manage to squeeze racism into ever little thing, this was a great talk
imagine not knowing we're entering an ICE AGE lolz
Imagine not knowing how much human life length will take, about 500 ..
This man made change is just 2 human life length long..
@@klokoloko2114 Believe in the words of people that are constantly wrong much?
With the internet, there is no excuse in not knowing the crimes of people you trust!
@@klokoloko2114 Wrong. They are lying to you. Look into the rebuttals!
@@taboovsknowledge1603 Just say it here, we can talk about it,
@@klokoloko2114 You must take the red pill. No one can force you to!
Rest in peace Bangladesh, the Maldives and Seychelles.
You are missed.
lol ok al gore
@@crimsonthinker5161 I'm really worried about Obama's beachfront property... (smh)
super video
bonehead deniers??? ..... whoa?
merhaba tebrik ederim.
TEŞEKKÜR EDERİM.
Why is there obviously such a need to school us about Climate Change? I tell you what I learned at school. In 1993 several different school teachers told us that the Maldives will be vanished by the year 2010 because of the rising sea levels. Well. They are still there.
Sea level rise right now is 4 mm per year or 1/6 of the inch per year, calculate for your self.
In 1993 it was 2.5mm per year 1/10 of an inch per year..
Did they also teach you that last time this much CO2 was in air 15 millions years ago sea level was 20 feet higher ?
NOOO, because in 1993 CO2 was 355ppm and now is 416ppm.
Forest fires are bad management caused
A small part of the problem. Don't generalize. Increased temperatures, longer dry season, reduced precipitation are the main factors.
@@christiank.8110 you're correct. I should've emphasized on fires that swallow entire counties in CA. How the F is maintaining a no vegetation zone around those wouldn't have prevented their demise?
I do not have a proof but I bet my left arm theres propaganda to be pushed with these fires by certain ideologies...sacrificing some California forests in order to "save the planet"
If these fires didn't threaten or kill people no one would watch the news coverage. Local municipalities and CA gov. Are all in on it.
Such an important talk. We need to steward the Earth.
Start stewarting with charging the top richest for crimes against humanity.
@@taboovsknowledge1603 Reducing CO2 emissions is how to solve this problem and one of the solution is to tax richest more
Geoengineering no such thing climate change.
I am a big fan of Hubert Lamb, told me don't worry Cath you won't live long enough to find out who is correct, but hopefully man will stop polluting the planet. So I shall not wait and see.
A few interesting observations are included, but Belmont's talk is burdened by too many problems and errors overall. Presenting it in English is probably his first problematic choice, assuming he really is concerned about the environment of the planet.
Привіт всім з ДНР!
The fact that people still question well established scientific topics such as evolution or climate change worries me
There is concerted anti-intellectualism - it worries me too.
@Gerald Miller She just transmit what those scientist talk all the time from 1853
@Gerald Miller okay, if your claiming to support science, can you provide a scientific study that says that humans aren’t causing global warming or a respected respectful scientific source. Or is it all a hoax because you don’t agree with the conclusions of peer reviewed science? I like to hear your explanation why you don’t think humans are causing climate change.
@@klokoloko2114 not really, Thunberg does over hype certain things tho I don’t know why people give her a hard time.
@@guthrie_the_wizard how is supporting the work of peer reviewed science “anti-intellectualism”?
Ktoś z polski? :))
Thank God he used "racism", "bonehead", and other ad hominem insults to describe his critics - I was almost ready to take him seriously. Name-calling is not a rational argument.
It is true, 25% of historical CO2 emissions that are right now in air is from USA, 22% from EU, China 12%.
Africa that suffer the most contributed less than 1%.
Yeah this guy seems to care more about calling out the people in opposition to him rather than climate change itself.
That's what you took from this video? Shame..
Or maybe you were never going to take him seriously so you are looking for whatever excuse to dismiss him, because you are a boneheaded climate-denier.
Know it all LMAO
Another giant load of used horse food.
You are proof that our educational system has failed us. Please go back to school.
@@christiank.8110 Just keep drinking the kool aid, moron.
Only way ? You limit yourself that way buddy... People deny science because scientist lied to them for so long ? ;)
They didn't. The problem is that some people said that they said something but they didn't and now you think that they lied.
This is not the case.
@@klokoloko2114
You misspelled your last name if you think that you can make us believe that. I think you need a c.
So. You're not relevant and in the annual Davos meeting because you choose not to be? Yeah, no.
deforestation monocrop for cattle feed and slaughter... denie all you want lel
Zone zone zone done does Sammy know Clarendon discipline morning nurse though send me this yesterday +3 more
He should follow his own advice and put forth a substantive argument. Enviromental racism? Seriously? How could he live out blaming Trump? Lol!