13 Misconceptions About Global Warming

Donate to the IPCC to prevent climate change → ve42.co/donateIPCC
Common misconceptions about climate change.
Check out Audible: bit.ly/AudibleVe
References below:
For CO2, sea levels, Arctic sea ice, Antarctic and Greenland land ice:
climate.nasa.gov
Satellite data shows that ground-based stations underestimate recent warming: Cowtan and Way, 2014
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10...
For papers published on climate change during the 1970's, see Peterson, 2008
ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/1...
For solar and temperature data see NASA GISS,
PMOD: www.acrim.com/tsi%20monitoring...
Krivova et al. 2007:
www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-c...
CO2 ratio of Carbon-13:Carbon-12 decreasing. IPCC AR4:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_d...
CO2 emitted by volcanoes vs by humans: Gerlach, 2011
www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011eo240001.pdf Gerlach
Mauna Loa CO2 data: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tre...
Rising atmospheric water vapour: Santer, 2007
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/07028...
A doubling of CO2 will likely lead to a 3C increase in global temperatures according to many independent pieces of evidence:
Knutti & Hegerl, 2008
www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir...
Great resource on Milankovitch cycles:
www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/...
CO2 lags temperature rise in the southern hemisphere but leads the global average temperature rise, Shakun et al. 2012
www.nature.com/nature/journal/...
Music by Kevin McLeod, incompetech.com Songs: Hidden Agenda, Sneaky Snitch, Harlequin

[@dawarhead]

That internet guy was way way more reasonable than the actual internet.

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

Yhea, the actual internet jumps to conclusions much faster, push the propaganda argument, and when you refute they say "you're to brainwhased" argument and get out

[@simon6071]

That was 2014. But times have changed. So has the climate. The slight rise in temperature during Al Gore's heydays was grossly exaggerated to sell his global warming scam. The real drastic change of annual global temperature started in 2016 but it was cooling instead of warming. VIDEO: We Just Had Two Years Of Record Breaking Global Cooling VIDEO: Global Cooling to Persist for 50 More Years (529) | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

@@simon6071 Thats just not true. The rising trend was seen already in the 2000's and rising of sea levels as a consequence is much easier to see and prive how wrong you are wrong

[@simon6071]

My replies to Ervin under the video " Lunch Hour Live - Can We Cool The Planet?- GBH" proves that the video host of Veritasium should stick to physics not corrupted by the global warming scam and the climate change scam blaming on CO2 spread by radical left politicians.

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

@@simon6071 its not only by radical left politicians. Many politicians even from the right have giant enviromental plans, associating rnviromental action with a side of politics shows your kind of mentality Also, tell me 1 of the arguments presented in the vidro, if its good I may watch

[@justsomeguy4935]

It’s crazy how this video is approaching a decade old and the discussion on climate change has remained basically the same

[@tracevance5914]

Nervous sweats

[@joeblogs6598]

@Just some guy Because the greatest issue with the discussion has still not been figured out. 'Why do the majority of solutions to global warming require the tyrannical government control?' As the guy said at 5:49 ; "probably cheaper for us if we just started reducing emissions now". It's all a matter of costs and benefits. It costs money if we cut emissions, it may also cost money if the climate changes. The problem is figuring out which costs more. We know with certainty that governments are one the worst collections of people at making decisions that save the most money. Yet we are being told to put them in charge of solving the problem.

[@cccspwn]

Yup, it's amazing how much progress can be blocked by a party full of science deniers. Now their argument now has shifted to "its too expensive to combat climate change".

[@boogathon]

Yeah - and there's still no upward acceleration of global warming despite 50 years of predictions. And the folks worried about "carbon" still aren't protesting at the Chinese embassy... Carry on.

[@joeblogs6598]

Anyone else notice that 2 comments of the 5 replies are missing here? I don't like youtube's censor bots.

[@geckoserrar]

love how you aren't ridiculing the misconceptions, but are logically explaining their falsity. and love learning atmospheric fun facts on the way

[@benireges]

Exactly! No one should be ridiculed nor censored but instead corrected

[@leonvdm]

Explain the logic. These assumptions change on the daily.

[@joecherry8113]

That's the sad thing; at this point anyone perpetuating these misconceptions isn't doing so because we haven't explained it to them properly but because they're unwilling to change their minds

[@tablat1651]

@@joecherry8113 1000% disagree, little to no pedagogy has been made to make the general public understand climage change nor to help them accept or welcome the adaptations that should be done to reduce the damage.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

There is nothing 'logical' about claiming that adding 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts atmosphere over the last 150 years has caused earth to warm 1 degree. And he DID ridicule people who challenge global warming as 'dumb KZbinrs'.

[@megantibbetts5213]

I would love to see an updated version of this since I'm sure plenty of fun new evidence is available

[@InspiredScience]

Other than CO2 levels reaching 420ppm by NOAA's Hawaiian benchmark and 8 additional years of scientific knowledge / affirmations, everything in this video remain s spot-on. Perhaps the only thing that's changed are the random arguments by the anti-science crowd / fossil-fuel lobbyists.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

LOVE FOSSIL FUELS.

[@InspiredScience]

@@jeronimotamayolopera4834 - So Fossil Fuels are what do it for you? You like that crude oil feeling between your legs? I understand, but eventually you'll have to move on. Like it or not -- there will come a time where the hack of using unreliable piston/combustion-engines or fossil-fuel burning, cannot compete with modern tech. Perhaps you'll be able to find a rebound energy that makes you happy. *Maybe a little Nuclear booty-call from time-to-time.*

[@YraxZovaldo]

Nah, the evidence that refutes the arguments of deniers still is quite the same.

[@boogathon]

@@YraxZovaldo Your comment and the one above it contain zero credible facts. That's why you feel compelled to insult anyone who has a different view than your own belief system. To be credible you need to explain factually what, exactly, "refutes" what you believe in. For example, I am skeptical of the claim that our CO2 emissions are causing a climate catastrophe. If you believe that, you need to produce credible evidence that supports your belief, and link it conclusively to the rise in CO2. Can you do that? Or does your entire repertoire consist of labeling anyone you don't agree with as a "denier"?

[@impishfou6953]

One of the things that is wrong here is that, the other person understands what you are trying to communicate

[@peterslegers6121]

He seems to be listening... o.O ,,,

[@VijfMiljard]

Usually the argumentation spirals from "gullible" through "sheeple" into "fascist" within 3 to 4 posts.

[@deathstroke8639]

@@VijfMiljard exactly

[@user-pg8xg7dx8b]

@@VijfMiljard precies dat

[@cinegraphics]

That little spying device in your pocket, that we call "smartphone" is a lot bigger danger than CO2. Because in the future that will become an implant. And the people who control the operating system of the device (nowadays known as Android or iOS) will be the people to control the implant. That's the thing tech-savvy people are worried about. Because implants will replace smartphones in the next 30 years. Those implants will have more and more uses, including medical. And whoever cannot see the misuses of such a technology is probably dumb. But let's focus the sheep to CO2, what will happen in the year 2100, so they won't think about the more imminent danger.

[@stooge_mobile]

Has KZbin's algorithm made this go viral 4 years after release?

[@notmyusername1234]

Yes

[@MrNobbless]

if KZbin put this video in my recommended every year i would not be mad

[@ashi-7085]

Yes.... "climate change" is a thing again.... 2020 Election Theeeyyyre Baaaa~aaack

[@alyssawilson6271]

I just looked it up because I care

[@ventzp2133]

@@alyssawilson6271 In the grandest possible scheme... It will never matter. The damage we are doing... The planet will recover just fine

[@Lichcrafter]

Thank you for making a factual, informative video that doesn't resort to calling people anti-science or saying they are killing the planet. If more people talked like this, I doubt there would be so much controversy over the topic.

[@norsesaga1984]

But people are anti science and they are killing the planet, this video is only good for people like you and will not change nothing in the mind of an idiot. Yesterday was +40 in London and I heard people saying '' nah, is just summer, is normal.

[@13lackout360]

Even if I tried to explain to climate deniers why climate change is a problem, I have no doubt they would just contradict everything I would have to say on the matter regardless of the amount of effort put in. Why waste my breath talking to a brick wall?

[@deepflake5851]

@@13lackout360 because maybe YOU are the brick wall

[@TheOmegaXicor]

@@deepflake5851 "why waste my breath talking to a brick wall?" "because maybe YOU are the brick wall" so as a brick wall why would they waste their breath talking to a brick wall, you didn't actually answer the question you just insulted them...poorly

[@DS-cf1zc]

I think this video is really informative - I suspect we are a part of the problem, but we are not killing the planet as such - the planet has been both hotter and colder without us, just not in the human era. What I do suspect is that we may have successfully killed off our chances of long term survival, not now, or the next several hundred years - but at some point in the future it may be that the planet is in a warming cycle, and our activity has perhaps kicked the envelope we survive in over a cliff. I think we need a dual strategy - one to reduce our impact on climate change, and the other to prepare for our survival in a hostile environment. This may mean engineering theoretical domes over chunks of the plant while the hostile elements resolve themselves.

[@irrealislife]

Not to mention, not only is it about what we emit in CO2, but how we are decimating the planets ability to sequester the naturally emitted CO2 it was once able to.

[@avon001]

It would be great to see a 2021 revisit of this one.

[@brawndothirstmutilator5863]

The ocean has not raised at all. New waterfront property is being built all the time, who is buying it the same people saying it's rising.

[@avon001]

@@brawndothirstmutilator5863 you might want to research that before posting comments about it.

[@Taudlitz]

it would sadly looks the same, the science deniers still parrot same nonsense as back then.

[@williamhager855]

@@brawndothirstmutilator5863 maybe take a look at the apartment collapse before you make that comment

[@maggot1234]

@@avon001 no, u

[@Soulsphere001]

Reducing CO2 emissions won't hurt us in the slightest. The possible gain, on the other hand, is difficult to ignore.

[@gufpott]

Then show the way. Demonstrate how you can reduce your CO2 emissions without even noticing. There is nothing to stop you and like-minded people from doing what you say everybody else should do. Forget laws, regulations and taxes as this clearly isn't achieving what you want.

[@Soulsphere001]

gufpott Why would anyone have to forget laws and regulations? You're not making any sense. Anyway, we used to do it with something called AirCare, but now it's up to us to keep our vehicles from emitting too much CO2 into the environment. Hybrid vehicles could be one way of doing this, though the increase in electrical use might be a problem.

[@gufpott]

Soulsphere001 It makes sense because you (in effect) claim the benefits are self-evident when you assert there is no downside, and the gain is obvious (difficult to ignore). If that was the case, the actions would not need to be pushed through legislation. They would be readily adopted by society. You would be able to achieve this as a "first mover", showing the way and getting wider society behind you. This is why many people have (for example) mobile phones and automobiles, even though these things are quite expensive. But this is not what you propose to do. You call for laws and regulations to impose change on society (against its "will"). This exposes a flaw in your position. If you think we need new laws and regulations to get what you want, there must be some trade-off which would otherwise deter wider society from doing the things you believe need to be done. Perhaps the costs are high. Perhaps the benefits are unconvincing. Perhaps there are other things. Either way, you are calling for laws and regulation to drive an agenda on an unwilling society. It is like the fable of the sun and the wind. You are playing the role of the wind, and it is the harder route to follow. Therefore you are finding it difficult and failing. It is not credible or consistent to simply declare it's all too easy and we will all benefit while calling for more law and regulation to force people to do what you want. You need to examine your position and try to better understand the position of an unwilling wider society. You will benefit from this, and I am not proposing laws and regulations to force you to do it.

[@Soulsphere001]

gufpott You don't need laws and regulations to make your own vehicle run properly. You don't need laws and regulations to get vehicle manufactures to make vehicles that produce less CO2 emissions. I believe the latter is being done when and where possible, but a lot of people don't take proper care of their vehicles.

[@IamGrimalkin]

gufpott Recenly some evidence has appeared that suggest that certain targeted CO2 emission reductions can improve the economy. This is because often things that emit a lot of CO2 also cause air pollution, and people getting conditions from air pollution costs the NHS (or equivalent) money, which then taken from the economy in taxes. Of course this is complicated by things like diesel cars, which give of less CO2 but more air pollution than their petrol counterparts (or at least they used to, before recent improvements in diesel technology). But to a certain extent, this holds. The thing is though, right now, while the tax on the whole economy is related to the pollution levels, the tax on individuals or companies isn't, so they have no strong incentive to reduce their pollution levels.

[@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351]

Great video. Could you make a new version with more up-to-date data?

[@earldecker7760]

I see you are hooked on fantasy and sci-fi videos based on unscientific facts with data and records that have been manipulated before they have been entered into GIGO computers producing garbage outcomes. FYI-there is no optimum global temperature as climate is always in change and temperatures fluctuate all the time on all parts of the globe 24/7 since the sun and atmosphere were created. There will always be hot/cold, seasons and day/night will not cease as long as the earth lasts. Gen. 8:22.

[@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351]

@@earldecker7760 I am god and I command you to stay silent. Prove me wrong.

[@sailexw6414]

Serious science question: Considering we are at the tail end of the interglacial cycle, and over the period of the last 10,000 years or so the warm weather has led to an explosion of biodiversity on the planet, and glacial periods (some consider these to be high level extinction events) last around 90,000 years, and also the fact that the Earth has been happy and healthy in it's past at CO2 PPM levels of over 2000, AND Milankovitch cycles are shown to be paused when CO2 PPM levels are above 350, then isn't putting CO2 into the atmosphere EXACTLY what we should be doing to save ourselves from 30 feet of ice over out heads?

[@derPetunientopf]

We are doing it to early and we are doing it to much.

[@thethinkinggamer1864]

Its not just about us, its ruining biodiversity on the planet more than saving it. CO2 emissions have been known to ruin ecosystems by polluting not just the oxygen organisms breathe but the water aquatic organisms live in. We've only seen a massive increase in CO2 so far and it alters the acidity levels of water globally by a significant amount resulting in acid rain. Which may not harm humans directly but is still fatal to cities. You will find massive amounts of pollution in countries such as China for its massive success in industries and factories. Fun fact is a ton of our water we get is from glaciers, about 75% of earths freshwater is stored inside glaciers, easily beating lakes, rivers and other sources by a longshot. The glacial cycle wont happen in a long time while it would only take a decade or less to raise the average temperature of Earth by 1 degree. The glacial cycle may not happen do to the Earths atmosphere which has developed to protect us from ice cold temperatures everywhere. Good question.

[@sailexw6414]

@@derPetunientopf but according to the data, wouldn't it be better to do it too early and too much, than to do it too late? What about all of the extinct species that could have been saved in the past if the Earth only maintained higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

[@DylpiqkleSTier]

@@sailexw6414 earth was already warming up slowly before we started releasing co2. The most recent ice age was the last pet of the cycle and we are getting warmer now.

[@derPetunientopf]

@@sailexw6414 If you are doing it to early there are no more species to save because we killed them already by warming to fast at that point. Its all about timing and keeping a balance in the system.

[@harishpal6478]

If the slope is nill, the climate's chill. One of my favourite lines.

[@Asheface11]

lol yup...along the same lines as "flatten the curve"

[@rrttttj]

What are the mario bros view on global warming? Mario: Global warming is happening all the time, which is bad news for humans Luigi: If the slope is nill, the climate's chill

[@flobbie87]

I think it is "nil" with only one l.

[@mashfour]

Is it nice to be simple?

[@XHecs999]

what's *nill*?

[@kacey797]

Damn this vid is 6 years old but it feels like uploaded today

[@181cameron]

The debate with stupid folks has been going on for pretty much my whole life. I remember an Earth Day protest in 1990 (the 20th anniversary of Earth Day). Same arguments back then.

[@Cissy2cute]

It is just as relevant, if even more so.

[@humanperson5122]

7 years ago

[@masksarelies391]

Its full of the latest bs. So much short brained idiocracy being used to, so call, debunk the sunglass dude. Waste of time listening to this dork.

[@cheesi]

@@masksarelies391 thanks for explaining i guess i'll take your word for it

[@blablup1214]

One big problem that I see is there are no solutions we can agree on. The other problem is the unfairness. Nobody wants to reduce his consumtion knowing that "he gets no benifits" and others take this for a reason to increase their consumtion. We (humans) are very selfish, we want to directly see our benifits if we "suffer" to reduce the amount of CO2. Another problem is our society or our economy is based on growth. We need to always consume more and more to keep our economy running. No politician wants to be the one making everyone unemployed. More than 50% of our jobs are based just on useless consumtion. And I think the biggest problem is : Climate Change is a rich guy problem. It is estimated that the richer half of the planet is responsible for 90% of the CO2 caused by consumtion. The richest 10% alone are estimated to be responsible for close to 50% of the CO2 caused by consumtion.

[@CandidDate]

Wait, shut up! You're being reasonable. We can't have that at all!!!

[@boogathon]

Ummm-mm... since 2010 the U.S. has reduced CO2 emissions by more than 6%, but mainland China's CO2 emissions keep skyrocketing year over year - by double digits. But no one protests in front of the Chinese embassy. In fact, NO Americans ever protest what China is doing, they only castigate America. Maybe you could organize the first protest at the Chinese embassy. If you do, I might march with you.But give me some advance notice so I can paint my sign, 'K? Thx. Next, you wrote: _More than 50% of our jobs are based on useless consumtion._ Were you elected to decide which consumption is useless, and which isn't? We already have gov't bureaucrats trying to micro-manage everyone's life. Do we need more folks telling us how to spend our money? And if I can only spend it on oatmeal, what good is it, gnome sane? Finally, climate change isn't a problem for _anyone._ We can manage. That's why there are insurance companies. And whether you're rich or poor, one thing everyone has in common is the fact that CO2 is harmless at current and projected concentrations, and more of it is beneficial to the biosphere. CO2 is harmless and beneficial. No kidding, who'd athunk it? There are a bazillion things to worry about that have bad consequences, but CO2 isn't one of them. Best to worry about things that matter, and that you can fix, no?

[@phantasticmrphasma9874]

@@boogathon you are the type who limits sustainability in favour of self-gain and very often justifies it by pointing fingers at the other tribe who are doing the same or worse.. yawn…

[@boogathon]

@@phantasticmrphasma9874 _You_ are the type that never has an answer based on hard science, so you make up a pseudo-psychological bloviation to cover up your failure to refute the points I made. Carry on.

[@johnmurphy9550]

@@phantasticmrphasma9874 you really should investigate Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Schellenberger, both of whom point out the flaws in the current narrative in spite of one being a former climate activist & the other accepting the problem and pointing out the flaws - this whole debacle is being pushed forward on the basis of 'we have to do something' while ignoring the fact that doing the wrong thing will cost huge sums of money & thereby limit what can be done when we actually get round to a strategy that can work. It's like we're in a boat that will sink in 5 hours if we don't all bail it out at the same time. It will take 7 hours to sink if 50% don't pull their weight, 9 hours if 20% don't pull their weight & 15 hours if only one person bails it out. In other words, it's a 100% coordinated effort or we sink - best prepare to protect what we can. Maybe not ideal but if that's all we have, we have to deal with it & China has zero interest in doing anything that might help the imperialist west, so they're building their reserves to protect what they can while you all sit around whining

[@ivankitov314]

As a physicist, I am pleased that data are gathered and discussed. Discussion is critical for a better understanding of the phenomenon. As a physicist, I would appreciate the uncertainty limits or standard deviations of the presented measurements, especially for the human/non-human emission. The discussion without uncertainties is worthless because it proves nothing.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

As a physicist, why do you believe that adding 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts atmosphere has caused earth to warm 1 degree? Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

[@dantong5623]

People love uncertainty when It comes to climate change, but it changes nothing and detracts from the discussion with the general public. It seems anything with any uncertainty means the scientists are uncertain. People never seem to care about uncertainty with, say, the possibility of a terrorist attack in the future, and we just had to invade Iraq. We also never cared about uncertainty when we talked about how the scientists are in a conspiracy to fool the public with climate science and COVID, they have to be doing that, and everyone who believes that is 100% certain.

[@Medwolf]

Saying that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold where you are, is like saying the sun doesn't exist because it's night

[@BlazingMagpie]

You're right. At night sun doesn't disappear, it only turns off. North Korea landed on it at night.

[@Medwolf]

@@BlazingMagpie hehe lul

[@Kintabl]

It exist, but is not the end of the world.

[@Medwolf]

@@Kintabl what climate change? if so, in the centuries to come, it will definitely feel like the end of the world

[@Kintabl]

@@Medwolf No it will not. You don't know what you talking about. Why you think it will feel like it's the end of the world?

[@Lorentari]

5:30 - Totally unrealistic. No person, right or wrong, has ever stated "Let's say you're right" on the internet and meant it.

[@thombruce]

Let's say you're right, let's say nobody has ever said "let's say you're right" on the internet and meant it. That would mean that at the beginning of this paragraph, I was using it disingenuously, as some kind of ironic rhetorical device for the purposes of humour. What would be the point in that? The joke would fall flat for many and it would barely be funny to begin with. Do I really seem like the kind of person who would write all of this for the purposes of a bad self-referential joke?

[@water1374]

@@thombruce Let's say you're wrong, how live?

[@trollface7243]

Let's say you're right

[@chivu8535]

Let's say you're right. That's an opinion, not a fact. And I can neither confirm nor deny an opinion without any facts. So, let's say you're right. I'm wholeheartedly and sarcastically emphasizing this thank you.

[@carelgoodheir692]

It's another way of saying, "If that were true".

[@Marc_xcv]

I think it's fair to say that the global warming topic needs a Veritasium update.

[@KaykyG018]

I think one of the problems is many people ask questions but not many do their actual research on the topic.

[@carelgoodheir692]

In reality, for most of us, we have to go by our sense of who we trust more. The "research" we did would be reading about the research done by others with the qualifications and resources to do primary research. My own degree is in modern history and the main message all through the four year course is question - what weight should you put on evidence from the past and what considerations should you take into account? I decided way, way back (in the '80s) that the people describing the basic mechanisms were to be trusted. The subsequent work done in the field(s) makes it possible to put somwhat less tentative figures on possible outcomes, I think - again because I find those sources more trustworthy than those the sceptics use.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

The only 'research' you need to do is convert parts per million to reality. Humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts atmosphere over the last 150 years. That's when you realize that all of this CO2 climate change hysteria is a bunch of nonsense.

[@Baddad36]

This is a genuine question that I'd love to know the answer to. How do you measure a 3mm rise in sea level?

[@PDGX]

My assumption: there are 100s or 1000s of high accuracy sea level gauging stations across the globe. They may be equipped with pressure transducer data loggers to record sea level height every hour or every minute. The trends and averages over a year or ten years can then be calculated. (I work with inexpensive groundwater level equipment that is accurate to 1mm for a single reading).

[@bluesbr0ther588]

They measure it from satellites.

[@warickjames4417]

Great question, there is probably an algorithm of proofs just like a climate science model has an algorithm of cherrypicked data. If you mix fine wine with mud you get mud if you mix science with politics you get politics.

[@psychopompous489]

It's kinda like how the average number of children per family is 2.5. You can't get 2.5 children but you can have 1 billion families have 2.5 billion children between them, even though they might have anything between no children to a dozen individually. Similarly, you won't be able to measure any point of the ocean height to millimetre accuracy (like the .5 child), but you will be able to say that your 1 billion tests on average see a 0.003 metre increase, even though one point on the ocean might show very different results. If you want to learn more about university level statistics, I can recommend a few Minecraft speed runners.

[@timpala5841]

You can't. If the ocean floor is constantly on the move then there is no way to get an accurate level. Some guages show rising, some falling and some no change. How can this be? My bath doesn't fill up at one end. Even if it is rising slowly, it has been for 10,000 years. Any current rise is well below the average since the end of the ice age.

[@matthew_thefallen]

This was 6 years ago. Nothing changed except that the climate did get crazier...

[@jeffberwick]

So did the people!

[@avon001]

Yeah looking back, this video seems very conservative about climate.

[@jjenn050]

@@avon001 In what way?

[@avon001]

@@jjenn050 well climate change sort of looked more linear from the perspective back then, now it seems more exponential than we previously thought.

[@angeleyes2c]

@@avon001 The danger of a climate snowball effect has been known for a *very* long time. But if you said that, you'd be an 'alarmist'.

[@-TheDevilsAdvocate]

I’m humble enough to declare that I was “internet guy” for most of my life, until a few years ago… what happened? Instead of climate activists screaming in my face and blocking streets with protests, I was presented with facts like these. I checked them, accepted them, and my worldview changed. Never, ever underestimate the power of reason and logic over “protest”.

[@wildzwaan]

We don't listen to people we superficially deem uncool. Then some of us grow up.

[@Eden_Vegan]

And you're still stubborn as to think you were right and people who literally spent their time for free informing about global warming are wrong. What an absolute joke of an adult you are.

[@BlackTearDrop]

Protest isn't supposed to change your mind specifically it raises awareness and puts pressure on companies and governments who already have the facts you speak of but don't care or still remain ignorant or selfish. If everyone changed their mind when confronted with "the facts" and "logical argument" the world would be a lot more peaceful and there wouldn't even be a climate debate to begin with because everyone would be on the same page. Protest is suppose to be inconvenient that's the whole point of it. Don't take issue with someone blocking a road take issue with your Government which likely isn't doing enough to reach net zero targets or is still allowing corporations to mess up our planet while claiming to care. Which most big governments are

[@mathlitmusic3687]

Climate activists aren't supposed to teach you, they are there to make the government take action. That's why they don't protest outside your home, but instead outside public offices (by doing attention seeking acts like road blockage, sloganeering, etc). It's petty to think that just because they seemed "uncool" to you, you didn't listen to them and instead became climate change denier who enjoyed making fun of them. The shame is on you for being superficial, not on them for being attention-seeking or audacious. The science was always out there, and scientists and educators were explaining it for decades, so there is no excuse of "but they weren't explaining it nicely to me". I hate to say this but it's petulant to blame your lack of growth in the past on others.

[@falklumo]

The question for you to answer: What did you make check facts?

[@ebozyn]

I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. That's for each individual. I just want individuals to never stop learning and questioning people who would try to force you to stop learning, and questioning everything, thinking for yourself, forming your own opinions. That's that's a message you'll probably never hear from your gov. sources and if you do, they'll make sure it isn't easy for you to find the materials needed.

[@kmacgregor6361]

Governments have a vested interest in people learning as much as possible. I mean, they are in charge of education. The more educated the public is, the easier it is for government to govern without having to contend with wacky misconceptions and conspiracy theories, and the more likely the electorate is to make good decisions about who is put in (the political part of) government. As a government employee myself, I really, really wish people would learn more and pay attention and use their brains or just read some of the huge amounts of freely available information we publish on the internet and send people by mail. We try really hard to get information to people but it seems like many people are extremely resistant to new information, either because they're just bored by it or because it doesn't align with their existing beliefs. This is in one of the most educated countries in the world - it must be even harder in the US where people are less educated on average, more people are religious and conspiracy theories are rampant.

[@maxb8043]

KZbin algorithm: let's put this in everybody's recommendation 4 years later

[@Isaac-np2xp]

You literally copied the top comment because they can't count either

[@maxb8043]

@@Isaac-np2xp Basically this comment is as unoriginal as a comment can get, but who cares

[@dimmacommunication]

I warched this 4 years ago tho 😂😂

[@trollslandan]

Snake Veritasium is an übersmug strawman maker in this video so if you want to understand what is factual and what's not, then Veritasium's propaganda channel is the wrong place. Propagandist notVeryclassyum could instead please explain why the central idea in climate science - the basic greenhouse gas effect model - descended from Manabe & Wetherald has: - never been tested nor validated. - has no falsifiability criteria - is written down nowhere in a canonical scientific form but everywhere are pseudo-scientific poetry “CO2 traps heat” - makes absurd assumptions which defy known physics (including 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) - does not take account of the real behaviour of CO2 in absorption/emission of infrared radiation - is entirely unsupported by observational evidence. When he can answer these points one might consider believing the whole of so-called climate “science” is not pseudo science, but real science. To anyone interested: A newly published paper from the University of Turku, Date: July 13, 2019. arxiv. org/pdf/1907.00165. pdf "NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature. 1. Introduction The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2-5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully. 2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature The basic task is to divide the observed global temperature anomaly into two parts: the natural component and the part due to the green house gases. In order to study the response we have to re-present Figure TS.12 from Technical Summary of IPCC AR5 report (1). This figure is Figure 1. Here we highlight the subfigure “Land and ocean surface” in Figure 1. Only the black curve is an observed tem- perature anomaly in that figure. The red and blue envelopes are computed using climate models. We do not consider computational results as experimental evi- dence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other. + journals. sagepub. com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.2.389?journalCode=eaea& + arxiv. org/pdf/1812.11547. pdf

[@zemorph42]

@@trollslandan @potholer54 and tell him that.

[@sthappit2052]

That's a lie the hottests years was 4.5 billion years ago

[@royk7712]

yea ofc 1000k day and night because earth is molten lava

[@adamn7409]

roy k don't you get jokes?

[@edwardboss]

lol

[@royk7712]

i'm fun at parties

[@monkeyhonest179]

Ur saying u knew the temperature 4.5 billion years ago? When the Earth formed?

[@Jerry-zz2eu]

Misconception #1: Policy and proposals in place by western nations will have ANY meaningful effect other than skyrocketing costs.

[@tehhammer]

Misconception #2: The baseline temperature they use to determine if we're warm is the correct one. We started recording temperatures in the 1800s shortly after coming out of the "little ice age". The temperature then was cooler than 90% of Earth's history (and still is!).

[@scepta101]

This video makes good points using actual science and effective logic… which means the people who need to hear it most will ignore it, sadly

[@seinfan9]

Well, actual science has a lot of alarmism in it as a basis for funding. If you don't give me tens of millions in research, humans go extinct in 10 years!

[@bigbirdmusic8199]

Too bad the video doesn't address how horribly inaccurate our ability to measure changes over long distance of time is

[@brynleytalbot778]

@@bigbirdmusic8199 Don’t introduce Inconvenient Truths. The bright young minds blow a fuse. I’m always astounded that few notice the science is skewed by volume towards proving climate change rather than objectively questioning it. There are so many variables in action that no modelling can encompass them all so they’re fundamentally flawed, which honest scientists admit. From my perspective science has morphed into a religious pursuit backed by belief and faith. This doesn’t represent the scientific method. Due to that I’m sceptical about its findings. The economic growth from green solutions doesn’t fill me with confidence either. I fear they will wreak more havoc than good. For me there’s only one sound logical solution. Lifestyle reductions and the cessation of West is Best. I’m not holding my breath.

[@tittyman3710]

the earth is flat I we just flip it over on the cool side like a pillow and boom no more global warming

[@FamiliarGecko]

But then the houses fall off :(

[@billsmith2041]

This is the smartest thing I have ever read.

[@memestogoplease1204]

This is the single most smartest thing I ever heard. Ever

[@lookingfortruth1930]

Titty Man stfu smart ass

[@rabaldern]

Is no falt! Is Triengle!!

[@Fausto_moh]

Should we even be trying to convince the internet? They're still arguing that the earth is flat.

[@soraltt]

centuries behind

[@jazzmoos5382]

Hammer them! Repeat. Drill it in. Never ever stop.

[@mickthelick5788]

Well if you can convince just one person it's probably worth it but I take your point. Somewhere along the way, it feels like we stopped teaching/learning how to critically think. I find it ironic that this is called the "information age", I think the "dis-information" age would be more appropriate. I've seen so much of it in the last 5-10 years, people simply dismiss information that does not support their worldview. Trumpism, Balsonaro, Brexit, climate change. Even when confronted with unarguable facts and data they simply dismiss it in favour of what they "believe". Education and a lot more of it worldwide is sorely needed. It also wouldn't hurt if there were better regulation of the increasingly bi-partisan news outlets and some accountability when they perpetuate false information as fact without adequately confirming its legitimacy otherwise all we will get are self-perpetuating echo chambers, generation after generation with no ability to critically discuss and generate effective solutions.

[@koalanectar9382]

Common rhetorical technique. Bring up the most extreme crazy thing (people who say the earth is flat) and conflate it with everyone else. It's like when people are somewhat hesitant to take the current covid vaccine because of the documented side effects and the fact it was developed in less than a year, you'd probably say "What do you think bill gates is injecting you with microchips lol!!". Like, uhh no I don't, I'm just exercising healthy skepticism.

[@greatbriton8425]

I watched up to 2:00 and had to stop. This video is shockingly deceptive. So bad that it can only be done deliberately, or should I say, the producer has done literally no research of their own. Just for 2 examples, 1. the measured temperatures are trending downwards since 1940. NOAA adjust the temperatures so the trend is upwards. That's to adjust for circumstances affecting the thermometers to make it more accurate, you say? No. The adjustment is according to CO2 levels. 2. The sea ice is in a perfectly normal range. for the last few years it has been decreasing but this is the only part the video shows you. Were you to view the last 100 years you would see that it actually higher than normal and the trend is not downward. I don't know why the deep state wants socio-economic control so badly that it bribes and batters it's way across the scientific and media communities to force this global warming agenda but it is an incontrovertible fact that this is what it is doing. For example an Australian professor got fired for pointing out facts revealing that the Great Barrier Reef is not suffering from global warming as the university was claiming. The grip is strong. The money and power are being exerted heavily. Some of the people spouting the propaganda will of course be ignorant dupes, but many are being paid to pass it on or otherwise threatened to keep them quiet. Don't argue with me here, either. I haven't got all day to tend to this war. If you're a dupe, go watch Tony Heller videos. Get your eyes opened.

[@thewormwhoisgod9886]

3mm/year of sea level rise! Oh no, it will rise by almost foot in a hundred years! Thanks for the heads up.

[@colinmacdonald5732]

Better buy those welly boots now before the stores empty!

[@GreenIsTheWayForward]

So, here we are, about 8 years later. My country, the Netherlands, known for its canals, year-round rain, and crazily well-done water management, is experiencing the second heat wave of the year (five days of at least 25 C, of which at least three of at least 30 C). The water level in both rivers and aquifers is so low that farmers are already for weeks forbidden to use water for irrigation. Cargo ships can't travel the rivers very well because they are too shallow. Factories can't take as much water from rivers as they need for cooling and had to scale down production or even stop completely. Natural parks are drying up, vegetation is dying off, and we even had the first wildfires here. And that's just the Netherlands. Further south, in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Balkans, and Greece, huge areas are without enough water and/or on fire, people are being evacuated by the ten-thousands, harvests are failing, about 6000 square km of forest has gone up in flames. And we're just halfway August. It's insane how fast things are changing. I understand the need for 'reasonable' debate, but we saw this coming for decades. Denying climate change should become punishable by law, and we should change our ways today, not tomorrow.

[@neelmanichaturvedi7901]

Really heat waves at 30°C mehh It's like normal temperature here 🙂

[@djpaceeuro]

It’s already too late. Humanity will be extinguished in about 30 years. There’s no way back. Even if we stopped any carbon emissions, the current CO2 in air will contribute to further global warming for at least 20 years. That’s not including methane from melt of ice cap is huge and it’s 80 times more potent than CO2. Is would bring the CO2 concentration close to 1000 ppm. All ecosystems will collapse as dominos. I say better enjoy life one day at a time don’t make any sacrifices in your lifestyle for the planet. Even if all humans on earth were making sacrifices, this would buy us only a few decades before the planet is becoming inhabitable. So better enjoy your flight in first class, your comfy sports car (which is as green as your electric car) and eat Angus steak until those are unavailable to you.

[@ronaldmoore6619]

Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. As usual it’s just all about the money. Just ask Al

[@michaelflagulant]

if co2 is the problem, then at this point it is too late. wild 🔥 from global warming release crazy tons of co2, this in turn would lead to more and more global warming!

[@ronaldmoore6619]

@@michaelflagulant so eventually the earth will be a giant fireball 🔥 and that will be that anyway.

[@spencerphilippinedream3706]

this would have been WAY more accurate if the dude with sun glasses just said "no it's not" to everything.

[@oldcountryman2795]

I have found “I don’t care” to be a much more effective response to climate alarmists. Get back to me when palm trees are growing in Tennessee.

[@RichConnerGMN]

@@oldcountryman2795 thank you, sir old countryman...

[@kennethg9277]

@@oldcountryman2795 the ignorant hickness is strong with you...

[@Juhuuu]

@@oldcountryman2795 "I don't care about this small noise my car is making. Get back to me when a wheel flies off." "I don't care about a bit of moisture in the walls of my house. Get back to me when the entire house is a swimming pool." "I don't care about a bit of smoke. Get back to me when the whole building is in flames." My point is that it's usually better to listen to the warning signs BEFORE things go south. That way you don't have to pay for the expensive mess. Same thing with climate change. If we take rational steps today it will most likely be better for everyone in the future.

[@therealdrbyte]

but less convincing to those on the fence

[@GodmyX]

I showed this today to my conspiracy theorist grandfather... and then we had a fight.

[@davidsoberanis8161]

lol what'd he say

[@GodmyX]

David Soberanis Something as: "All this aggressive propaganda just shows how much they try to manipulate us."

[@davidsoberanis8161]

***** that's pretty sad i had an uncle who thought Obama was a lizard

[@GodmyX]

David Soberanis I see :-/ I feel with you!

[@davidsoberanis8161]

+GodmyX lol same

[@nolanmales]

that "why are you wearing sunglasses?" "Global Warming" totally got me 😂😂😂😂

[@shirsenduroy19-7]

Why are you wearing sunglasses? ~Global warming 😂😂 6:06

[@Essin62]

This video would do well with a 2019 remake. Things hasn't really gotten any better.

[@axeldahlberg8534]

What do you mean with; ”things has not gotten any better.” If you mean the debate, I can sort of see your point. But it’s not like the climate has done anything in five years that is even noticable.

[@Essin62]

@@axeldahlberg8534 Yeah, hardly noticable at all. If you keep your eyes closed that is. www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/2018-fourth-warmest-year-ever-noaa-nasa-reports/

[@kareldegreef3945]

@@Essin62 the problem you have is that you want to beleave what you want to beleave ! even in this video there are manipulations going on ! if you look deeper you will see that we have almost no effect on global warming ! btw we are going into a global cooling now ! the data has been manipulated if you don't know it by now ! there is no consensus on man made global warming ! infact over 30000 scientists say that there is no evidence on man made global warming ! and that these manipulations have to stop => it is a disgrace to science ! CO2 is a very interesting molecule and has 4000 frequencies in wich it can vibrate ! only a tiny part of that contributes to warming wich gets annihilated by the earths greening effect ! + plants grow better and consume less water when CO2 levels are higher ! in this video he lies abouth CO2 never been so high as 400 ppm !!! CO2 has been much higher before 1200 ppm should not even be a problem !!! do you know that the allowed CO2 level at a workspace is set at 5000 ppm !!! did you know that for every person on this planet there are 2200 pounds of termites wich put out more CO2 then humans !!! did you even realize that the stored CO2 in the ocean takes up to 1000 years to be releaced again !!! the CO2 we have now is comming from the medival warming !!! if you look at the data from CO2 output (that is not shown here in the video ! ) from 1945 to 1970 => it went up by 300 % while the global temperature during that time went down !!! so much more to tell but the fact of the matter is => CO2 is a tax scam !!! do some real resurge because these lies are comming to an end !!! you will find out that sea levels are rising and falling at the same time because the land is sinking but they don't tell you that !!! they keep there mouths shut abouth that ! same with the ice ! the ice follows the earts magnetic field and that is now moving up fast 65 km per year ! filming melting of ice on 1 side but not filming on th other side were it gets bigger is pure manipulation ! pure manipulation of the media and 140 scientists who need to resign ! it's a Multi trillion dollar/euro scam !!! good luck

[@Stwinge44]

@@kareldegreef3945 CO2 output increased and it didn't affect temperature because the amount of emissions is still small relative to the amount we add now. Now we add gigatonnes of CO2 annually and hence we see a temperature change. You can't use a relative change metric(percentage increase in emissions) to measure an empirical metric(temp increase) In response to the petition of "scientists" rejecting climate change, it is stated that "The minimum requirement is a bachelor’s of science degree. That’s no guarantee that the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the person pursued a career in science." That means that many people who aren't even climate scientists can sign the petition, if you have a PhD in medicine for example you can still sign the petition. The real people we should listen to are the climate scientists, and they have reiterated again and again our influence on the climate. and as seen in this paper (iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf), there is a consensus among CLIMATE SCIENTISTS(the ones who know the most) of 97% that human-caused climate change is real. The paper was published in 2016, whereas that dubious petition was from 1996 onwards.

[@Stwinge44]

karel degreef the warming we observe now is not due to the sun output. See: climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ The data does correlate with our actions. Our greenhouse gases cause a warming planet. It’s as simple as that. Also, if you want to actually have a discussion, I’m gonna need you to present points one at a time, not release a barrage of opinions thinking it will make you win the argument. For clarity, India and China are in the Paris Climate Accord. They have set goals on when their carbon emissions will peak, and goals on reducing carbon intensity. Don’t spread misinformation. Also, I don’t know who isn’t looking at the data. At the moment, it seems to be you because you fail to address the scientific paper i linked... which is empirical evidence. So if you want to claim “oh no stop lying it’s actually only 0.3%” I’m gonna need to see some data.

[@slowrunn3r88]

"Why are you wearing sunglasses?" "Uhh..,to look more like a dick?"

[@slowrunn3r88]

Imb Students Lmao, Star Trek (2009) Captain Kirk

[@Maria-wu6en]

Brandon Love Because he was throwing shade😂

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I once spoke with a man about the consequences of climate change for work (I am an environmental science educated person). He listened and asked, what reductions do we need in CO2 emissions. I said, ultimately 99% reduction. He: That is unrealistic. I: then we go long term going to die as a species. He: So be it then. If we all die, nobody cares anymore. I could appreciate his clear choice.

[@mathlitmusic3687]

That's pretty superficial. He was just shrugging of his responsibility, not "making a clear choice". He just wasn't using his brain and only wanted to end the conversation "in his favour". No one in their right mind will say "My great great grandson will live miserable and likely die due to some climate catastrophic event, along with a majority of animal and plant species, but I would still like to pollute and not be slightly inconvenienced by joining the fight against climate change."

[@sh230968]

Clear choice was clearly wrong. We can't be so irresponsible. We have to watch our ways and leave the planet better than we inherited it.

[@Hickalum]

You think we’re all gonna die from CO2 emissions 😂😂😂

[@sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517]

In the past, this planet already had 2-3 times higher CO2 levels than is the current one (which would still be safe for humans btw and for plants even beneficial for faster growth) and guess what - nothing happened. Also, I love how they're using data from the past 100 years on a 6 billion year old planet. So much for this unfalsifiable bs.

[@Hickalum]

@@sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517 ; Yep, we’ve had global warming for 100 years and a 1 degree rise and … we are doing just fine. The scaremongering is propaganda for profit.

[@Finraen]

Aside from regions that suffer from desertification, wouldn't an increase in Co2 and subsequent rise in temperature and water content in the atmosphere result in increased plant growth, which in-turn would reduce Co2 in the atmosphere? Also, wouldn't an increase in water content in the atmosphere result in more precipitation in colder regions, meaning more snow coverage for a larger part of each year and therefore an increase in the albedo effect that might then lower earth's temperature? This video was informative, but the question of whether climate change, with humanity's small but perhaps impactful contribution, will permanently affect the earth in one direction remains not fully understood. The timelines are often exaggerated and sensationalized. Predictions are frequently made in silos and NOT in concert with all of the data across the entire ecosystem. Will the earth's systems find a way on their own to correct for warming over time? Shouldn't we then perhaps focus our efforts not just on reducing Co2 (which everyone is over-zealous about) but on getting out of the way of the planet's own coping mechanisms? Better yet, working in conjunction with and harnessing the planet's own systems for correction, and relying on them where they are reliable? Deforestation is worth watching closely for many reasons (not just climate change). One of the main problems we have in addressing this issue is that it is often treated by people as being more important than maintaining healthy economies. IMO maintaining healthy economies is a far more urgent issue that will directly affect more humans and in a shorter time period. Don't put the cart before the horse. If we fail at economics, then we can't hope to solve climate issues in the long run. But neither should be ignored. Are there things we as humans can do to reduce our impact on the climate? Of course! Let's focus on those that are win-win and end up saving money AND improving our conservationism, instead of telling humans they are a cancer on the planet and they have to stop consuming this or that or future generations will all die.

[@Falkenlp3]

Good point there

[@asbniiie7818]

solving global warming with an economic consideration will actually be extremely helpful as companies produce all of the co2. Sure, planes and cars do too, but there's not really going to be a solution for that in our modern world. Some people seem to really focus on how they can contribute to the fight against climate change and everything but they're thinking too well of themselves. One human isn't going to last against the big companies who releases way more. Like Kurzegat (In a nutshell, I can't spell this) video. What's really important is that we start making big companies do actual affective things. Like the ones who say they use recyclable material. Good on you! You want a sticker? Just because it is recyclable doesn't when it will get recycled properly. Everyone may diligently dump the stuff into recycling bins but then countries will often just send this over to third world developing countries which do whatever they want with it (hint: turn into cheap stuff that ends up in a dump anyway). Economics is a huge part of society and solving any problem with it in mind is just going to make the process of change easier. It doesn't mean that economics is necessarily more important, but it has an impact.

[@YraxZovaldo]

CO2 isn’t a very limiting factor for plant growth. Nutrients and water are way more important factors. And the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is so much, extra plants can’t compensate for this. Some estimates say that around 1 trillion trees can take up 200 Gt of CO2. With the current CO2 emissions, you would need thus to plant 1 trillion trees every 6 years. This would mean the total amount of trees would need to double in less than 20 years.

[@Veeravaara]

CO2 and warmth is not a limiting factor at the moment for plants, as they have very well adapted to their current climates. Nature is not equipped with change this rapid, species will go extinct and that in turn will result in whole ecosystems collapsing. Individual species might do well at least at first, but the self regulating cycle, the balance of nature will be disturbed, "reserves" of nutrients and necessary micro and macro environments will be lost. They will be flushed to a seabed etc. Since most important ecosystems have been developing for millions of years and have become self sustaining and self relying we are looking at irreversible destruction. Reinforests won't regrow, as current species of trees need a specific type of environment to grow, and that kind of environment was built by those millions of years and previous species. In addition, the species that could survive despite this, humans have destroyed their pathways for regrowth and spreading. There is not a lot of space for nature left. Furhtermore it has been proven time and time again that biodiversity and climate change are strongly linked, so biodiversity loss is inevitable, and unfortunately our whole civilisation, not just the current nature, is dependent on it. Biodiversity is what provides us with our resources, without it and the ecosystems it guarantees we will be facing global hunger.

[@Veeravaara]

I mean the nutrients we need for farming, those all rely on natural cycles provided by ecosystems. So no, healthy economies are not a priority, as they are built on an unsustainable ground.

[@smashfanatic]

"The planet will be fine. The PEOPLE are fucked!"

[@jonz23m]

Yea but people probably gonna be fucked in 1000 other ways. This is just one, even if most people believe in the illusion of "democracy" "common good" and other fairy tales, fact is we live in a world of geopolitics, profits and power hungry sociopaths for the most part, their solution won't lead to what you hope for.

[@kitten-free]

@@jonz23m are you now fighting against the weather for your life? if you do, will you keep saying "it's just a 1001st way ppl are fcked"? i doubt that

[@Hayan_Yeou]

Good old George....

[@genostellar]

DIFFERENCE!

[@genostellar]

@@kitten-free Pretty sure he's feeling like it's a hopeless situation and that nothing can be done, not that it's fine and nothing should be done.

[@imwatchingyou7789]

If only people would discuss like this in real life, staying calm, no insulting, listening to the other person's arguments...

[@kevinim300]

and then just acting on the task at hand. but im not sure - yet - if anyone can...

[@SeanTheEvans]

@@kevinim300 lol, and what is that? Forcing China to stop pouring out pollution at the cost of their progress? Because 0% US emissions would mean little to no change on the global scale. People like yourself make these bland comments like "just act" when you don't have real solutions. Probably a "just make gun laws" person as well. Because we all know how much the person who shoots at others to take their things cares about the legality of the situation. Get your head out of your rectum, and stop being so smug about nothing

[@Ichibuns]

Our world leaders can't even do that

[@ceeemm1901]

In everybodys head, they're a genius. People watch game shows, reno shows, sing song shows, dancing shows, cooking shows. Dr Phil, Dr Oz, Days of our Lives, never read a book since Dr Seuss (which they couldn't get their head around) and think they have an IQ of 220, because the TV commercials tell them subliminally that they're SPEEEECCIAALLLL!!!

[@rocks4brains]

There is no argument. It’s a fact and you will accept what this government decides to do about it. Haven’t you been listening!

[@jimr5855]

if earth's climate is driven by a positive feedback loop, which is the essence of "climate alarm", then any warming would trigger a spiraling effect of warming (or cooling would trigger more cooling). Skeptics refer to this as "un-intelligent design". Imagine if you had a fever and you body triggered a positive feedback like shaking or other ways to induce more warming... any little warming would trigger rapid over-heating (which is exactly what is suggested in this video). Like wise if you got the chills and your body triggered a positive feedback to induce more cooling. Instead your body is "intelligently designed" and triggers negative feedbacks to offset the change and help revert back to a stable state. When you are hot you sweat and cool, when you get the chills you shake and warm... negative feedbacks. So if the Earth is the opposite (as suggested in this video) and uses positive feedbacks, its almost 5 billion years old... why did ice ages ever end? why did warm interglacial periods end? there have been many periods in earth history where temperature was warmer than today (7k years ago for example)... so why would the earth ever cool after a warm period, or warm after a cool period. The earth has done this experiment over and over throughout its history... the positive feedback suggestion is absurd. In the end, there is no evidence that CO2 is or ever has been the dominant factor driving climate... or even among the dominant factors. The climate is complex, chaotic and science still does not fully understand it. Water vapor for example is the most abundant greenhouse gas and has a warming effect, but pockets of it in the form of clouds have a cooling effect. It was warmer 7000 years ago and CO2 levels were lower. It's been colder during periods when CO2 levels were higher. Climate alarm survives and thrives by videos like this that ignore basic logic.

[@hlee697]

Yes. When it comes to complex system like global atmosphere, in which numerous elements have complicated relationships with each other, it is easy for one to find a particular positive loop or negative loop, just because there are so many possible interactions between elements. So it is very easy to cherry-pick as one wishes to argue, and one can use that small positive feedback mechanism to support their argument as many naive scientists do. However, if this positive feedback is true as suggested here, the earth probably does have a negative feedback mechanism for co2 l, water vapor, and T in longer time scale...

[@gcranston83]

@5:36 "I'm not claiming it's going to be some sort of crazy catastrophe..." How about now?

[@RuthwikRao]

"If the slope is nil, the climate is chill." - Le KZbin

[@johnfarnham7288]

Since 'the slope' is a rather arbitrary line though multiple variations, a little fraud helps arguments that things have changed. Jennifer Maharoney has done yeoman work in establishing that data sets have, in fact, been tampered with in a fashion to consistently indicate non-existent temperature rise.

[@johnfarnham7288]

Let's have a brief look at technical problems associated with temperature records. Realize too that heat is associated with high pressure systems. These days astronomers use calculations of air pressure to figure out surface temperatures. On Earth, we have complications of energy transfer to and from the oceans ( giant radiators ), though our winds are said to be moderate compared to what is thought is experienced on other planets. Regardless, the idea of excess energy going into the oceans means that it is more impossible than ever to truly calculate what is going on. The problem exceeds our ability to gather local conditions information or to model consequences of activity - which is why weather forecasting rapidly breaks down. Any claim "climate is not weather' needs to take a deep breath. Climate is experienced through weather conditions : all of them. And any thought we can explain what is happening needs to show that, in fact, is the case. www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/hottest-reliably-measured-air-temperatures-on-earth.html

[@johnfarnham7288]

You do not understand me correctly. You can make inferences until the cows come home. Such will likely prove useful in an effort to figure out what is happening. That is not at all the same thing as using projections in an effort to predict the future. You will never know whether or not you are right. kzbin.info?event=comments&redir_token=7oTV8qKrzCDOFul1qCK8pkHTB6J8MTUxMzM0MTcxNEAxNTEzMjU1MzE0&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2Fclimate%2Fbureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data%2Fnews-story%2Fc3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783

[@dannypike3189]

John Farnham That "slope" is known as the lone of best fit, and it represents the net correlation in a varying set of data. Also, the lone is used according to a system of averages, and therefore is not arbitrary. You tried to sound smart but failed. It's not a tactic used to falsify results, it is a real tool in mathematics, and it works. Have you even watched the video? You're telling me those graphs are fakes created by whoever to accomplish whatever? Who is falsifying data, and why are they doing it? I really want to know.

[@Ray-mw1fx]

if I am Neil, then we'll have a deal.

[@logangillett7769]

Not an accurate arguement. The guy with glasses didn’t start calling the other guy names after the first 30 seconds.

[@greatbriton8425]

I watched up to 2:00 and had to stop. This video is shockingly deceptive. So bad that it can only be done deliberately, or should I say, the producer has done literally no research of their own. Just for 2 examples, 1. the measured temperatures are trending downwards since 1940. NOAA adjust the temperatures so the trend is upwards. That's to adjust for circumstances affecting the thermometers to make it more accurate, you say? No. The adjustment is according to CO2 levels. 2. The sea ice is in a perfectly normal range. for the last few years it has been decreasing but this is the only part the video shows you. Were you to view the last 100 years you would see that it actually higher than normal and the trend is not downward. I don't know why the deep state wants socio-economic control so badly that it bribes and batters it's way across the scientific and media communities to force this global warming agenda but it is an incontrovertible fact that this is what it is doing. For example an Australian professor got fired for pointing out facts revealing that the Great Barrier Reef is not suffering from global warming as the university was claiming. The grip is strong. The money and power are being exerted heavily. Some of the people spouting the propaganda will of course be ignorant dupes, but many are being paid to pass it on or otherwise threatened to keep them quiet. Don't argue with me here, either. I haven't got all day to tend to this war. If you're a dupe, go watch Tony Heller videos. Get your eyes opened.

[@daveg1916]

@@greatbriton8425 There is just so much hilarious irony in your comment. You're never going to see it though.

[@snoglydox]

@@greatbriton8425 : You're going to have to show your source, because everything I have read implies the complete opposite, and the data, including the last 100+ years, implies your comment is full of BS; I bet you're one of those that believes the covit-19 vaccine is actually a mind controlling drug.

[@texantornadomma]

I SAW SNOW SIX MONTHS AGO YOU PIECE OF 💩

[@quack3891]

@@snoglydox I would assume it's someone named Tony Heller since they ended it

[@tier1solutions28]

This could be as big as acid rain, the next ice age, and the Millennium computer bust! We're in trouble! We need to raise taxes and fund our friends to fix it

[@papastar5702]

I know, right? I used to be an avid climate change advocate. But I did my own digging and there is just way too much data that says it’s not a human caused thing and that it’s totally cyclical. This guy simply say it’s fact isn’t good enough. And charts are always altered to support their narrative, so….

[@AriodanteITA]

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

[@mixolyde]

It's adorable that we think facts are going to convince anyone.

[@whocares8567]

Sad but true...

[@sheeprambeta3217]

Stupid is as stupid does, no changing their minds

[@toirdealbachbartoium5454]

Sort comments by new. It's actually hard not to get angry at these dipshits parading the strawman and data argument when they don't present any actual relevant data themselves.

[@Afiriss]

@@toirdealbachbartoium5454 it’s infuriating seeing the idiots saying garbage like “xd global cooling” and you can’t even argue with them, because they don’t have enough braincells.

[@salovila5328]

"I don´t agree with YOUR facts." They should really emphasize in grade school the difference between fact and opinion.

[@hugofonseca343]

Me at 2:00 AM taking a shower, thinking about the arguments I could have said:

[@tariketik9794]

Holy moly... so true, really happens to me often. I feel like I‘m so bad at formulating arguments

[@benconley1951]

Same, one of my older family members used a lot of these misconceptions when talking about climate change, and I had never heard those arguments before, even freshman biology (which was basically an entire year on climate change) didn't address these and probably just strengthened claims that it's all a hoax, at least now I know why those arguments were wrong

[@jeremiahfyan]

@@benconley1951 hol up why tf was biology talking about climate change that should be earth science 🤔

[@benconley1951]

@@jeremiahfyan dont ask me it was a dumb class, I think the link was the effects on animals though

[@jeremiahfyan]

@@benconley1951 ah okay I can see that. It would just seem out of place to go too in depth in that course. Who knows tho, it probably varies by state

[@neverontime]

Can you make an updated version of this video with new data since this was uploaded

[@JoJoDotCom888]

I had the same carpet in the background, until my dog peed on it, multiple times.

[@MythCraft00]

I'd like a similar one about the Moon landing conspiracy.

[@Kuxik009]

There's neither moon nor the sky, it's all just Illuminati projection!

[@benfillman4049]

+Kuxik009 and the earth is flat!

[@MythCraft00]

+Ben Fillman LOOMENADI LOOMENADI LOOMENADI WAAAAAAAAAAGH CONSPIRACY CONFIRMED !1!!1!!!1!1!!1!1!1!1!1!!1!1!

[@MythCraft00]

+Jože Ws Except they'd needed a studio in a huuuge vacuum chamber, since the dust raised by the rover doesn't form clouds. (The largest vacuum chamber is 30 meters in diameter, the LEM would fill a third of it but in Apollo 12 footage astronauts can be seen walking hundreds of meters)

[@RodMartinJr]

Funny to be mentioning the "Moon landing conspiracy" with "climate change." They have nothing to do with each other. We currently live in an Ice Age interglacial and this guy has it all backwards, inside-out, and upside-down. Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. If you understand why, then you'll see the major flaws in this guy's presentation.

[@Bikewithlove]

It's never a bad thing to clean up after ourselves. It's never a bad idea to make and operate things in the cleanest, safest way possible and be mindful of leaving a place the way we found it. Any argument against being thoughtful and responsible is plainly immature. Investing in scientists, boasting that we have the best ones, then cherry-picking their discoveries is narcissistic behavior in the extreme. Experts are to be heeded, not just bragged about.

[@cane870]

Bikewithlove Yup. Big corporations don't care. They don't have to pay the price for what happens, the whole world does. And sadly only for the actions of a small few. But there are barely any laws or regulations restricting the emissions of factories, so they can pretty much do whatever they want (I know there are, but the restrictions don't even scratch the surface).

[@Bikewithlove]

Person - That's my point, that the powers that be have become narcissistic purveyors of the double standard. Our country produces condescending entertainment media rhetoric urging its smartest people to become scientists, while at the same time ignoring and showing contempt for its best scientists in public. What the heck is a smart kid supposed to do in the face of such evident stupidity?

[@RodMartinJr]

Experts? That's an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

[@cane870]

Rod Martin, Jr. it is refreshing to see someone who knows about their logical fallacies, but I don't think he is appealing to "experts" to grow his argument.

[@Bikewithlove]

Rod Martin, Jr. - This comment in and of itself illustrates my point precisely.

[@wasabista1613]

2022: The Australian Institute of Marine Science annual report has found that the Great Barrier Reef central section and northern section now have record coral cover.

[@unperfectbryce]

Are we allowed to steal this content to make our own educational videos? its so insightful!

[@roydaboii9925]

“We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children” -Native American proverb

[@flowerthencrranger3854]

Makes sense

[@baldwinivofjerusalem47]

@@flowerthencrranger3854 heard you got yourself back into Canon S.W.U.

[@flowerthencrranger3854]

Unvirginator I wasn’t, the Blasphemy that they made by naming a Sith Star Destroyer with my name.

[@maggikandpal7522]

Exactly

[@edwarddongres7866]

No. They say they inherited from ancestors. And nothing to do with climate.

[@hiukas.]

Factually and correctly proves that the earth is warming... Still gets 4k dislikes...

[@IDMYM8]

these peoples are afraid and ignorant they just don't want to accept the bad things and only wanted to live in happiness. For them everything is fine if they don't want to understand the problem. Their Logic: _There's no problem if we think there isn't even if it is._

[@elljay3453]

In a Lancet study, cold weather accounted for 10.36% of all deaths in China, and 8.48% of all deaths in the UK (generally via respiratory illnesses and heart failure.) In a typical year in the U.S., cold weather kills the equivalent of 40 September 11th attacks. (By comparison, Brazil, sitting on the equator, still has far more deaths from cold weather than the 0.70% of all its deaths from hot weather.) But this clown joins the chorus of mass murderers who want to stop warming the planet. The only thing that could be deadlier than wanting a cold planet is wanting to increase heating prices via fossil fuel penalties. Not only should the video be downvoted, if KZbin had any sense, then the video would be deleted and the account suspended... faster than a guy who posted Anwar al-Awlaki videos. And that’s not even going into how it’s good for ice and permafrost to disappear from northern latitudes, while simultaneously even the Sahara desert greens from the benefits of increased CO2 and rainfall.

[@thelenny2772]

Ell Jay how do you know the study was correct? How was it performed?

[@thelenny2772]

Ell Jay Youll regret warming the planet when you understand it. You’re just another ignorant guy. This guy just proves with actual data the globe is warming. ‘Clown’

[@IDMYM8]

Ell Jay can you also tell what were the average age of those who died?

[@willtribe636]

Is the US military the number 1 polluter? A 2019 report found that the Department of Defense is not only the largest consumer of energy in the US but is also the world's largest institutional consumer of petroleum and, thus, the world's largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases.

[@rps1689]

That could be considering the U.S. military emits more CO2 than many industrialized nations.

[@meedpelayo9915]

“The earth is cooling!” Climate change 2022: “Hold my beer…”

[@franckr6159]

Look at this video first, then post your BS, if you still wish, only afterwards.

[@Sheechiibii]

To the people who are sceptical (like me) about whether we are causing global warming/climate change or not: why not be greener and live a more healthy, less toxic life anyway?

[@amber2448]

No

[@ghudner]

How can you still be skeptical after watching a video like this one? If you're still not convinced, there's about a billion more studies and climate change scientists to go look at.

[@guillaumebourgault5532]

Could you be more specific about how we could do that?

[@Sheechiibii]

ghudner To be honest I don't care about the issue very much, I looked into it a few years ago and saw a lot of arguments on both sides. However, because I believe in being green regardless I don't really have much interest in knowing who is right on the climate debate. Like I said in the first comment, why does it matter? Guillaume Bourgault I think it would be better to have less pollution, more recycling, renewable, natural energy. There are so many ways to keep our world a cleaner, more natural place.

[@BChart781]

There's a 99.9% scientific consensus that we're causing global warming.

[@arah8998]

I got an ad of "Is Global Warming Real?" at the beginning of the vid

[@coena9377]

Was it an environmentalist video or a climate change denial one?

[@ebozyn]

Don't stop there though, there are many more books. There are many scientist doing research even though they are being attacked for practicing proper scientific procedures. meaning open debates, questions, showing your work not just your results... ect. science exists because of constant questioning and openness, not "this is the way it is. no questions. get in line."

[@DANGJOS]

It took him an *entire* line of dialogue to finally ask why the guy is wearing sunglasses despite being indoors

[@TheHarboe]

I believe in global warming and that we ought to reduce our CO2-emission, however, I also believe most of humanity has gotten too dependent on technologies that produce CO2. Realistically we can't stop our CO2-emission without destroying infrastructures most people depend on. I believe the only solution is to develop and support technologies that produce less CO2 and to oppose and to some extend tax technologies that produce much CO2. Long term I believe we can develop technologies that are not only CO2-neutral, but that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at fairly low cost. It’s only a question of whether we can get there before Earth turns too much on us.

[@123hgf456]

+TheHarboe I really like where you are headed with this idea and its a collectively agreed upon method by most people that have a single shred of common sense. The only problem that arises with this angle of approach is that the powers at be that control the production of fuel, energy, military and commercial/personal vehicles ect make it a point to keep the development of said technologies hidden away. For instance the water powered hydrogen engine that uses electrolysis to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water. There was a man that made this process very effective and affordable and was on the track to manufacturing these vehicles when at the dinner to commemorate the agreement between him and the manufactures he was poisoned and killed. Or "cant pronounce/spell his first name" the guy who invented the Diesel engine. He designed it to run on homemade or commercially made BioDiesel fuel. But on his passage to England he mysteriously vanished from the boat he was on and never made it to the meeting to put his engine into production. It was later produced but thats not the point. You cant make these technologies that reduce Co2 when poowerful people and corporations are preventing it from happening.

[@erikbdixon]

+Spool This, but also it would take too damned long for us to *eventually* switch. We may just run out of time before we reach the point of producing almost no Carbon.

[@finlarg]

+TheHarboe There already is a low-tech solution to climate change: Photosynthesis. By encouraging reforestation, especially on desert margins, we not only suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but we reduce erosion and flooding. We also replenish organic material (compost/humus) in the soils, which stores carbon there indefinitely. When this is combined with farming methods, such as permaculture, vast numbers of people can be fed and employed doing something they genuinely enjoy. Of course, there's not a lot of money to be made that way - but what's more important, financial wealth or health and well being?

[@finlarg]

+Spool If someone, such as Stanley Meyer, really did invent an electrolysis machine which worked as well as he claimed, then where - in the age of the internet - is the freely available proof of concept? All we ever hear about are amazing claims.

[@123hgf456]

+finlarg I see your point. but at the same time if he didn't we was he killed?

[@shonenbag6478]

Even if you don't think climate change is real, just try to conserve resources guys. You can't deny you share a globe with 7 billion people.

[@prateekpanwar646]

@BronzeGod Difference is those agents are a lot

[@JoHn-gi1lb]

Some people don't even care about their own houses and you're trying to convince them to care about the planet lol.

[@edwarddongres7866]

NOBODY denies climate change, it's here for millions of years. Only global warm up.

[@moment554]

That won't work. Because one of the primary drivers climate deniers are so adamant is so to allow room for themselves to not care about others. You're telling people who don't care to care. Good intentions from you but it's not gonna persuade them one bit.

[@FlagAnthem]

@BronzeGod oh man, that picture is pure gold

[@Skyscraper21]

How the heck does one measure 3mm ocean level rise?

[@Fuck9oogleAskMe]

Do a follow up video comparing the data from then with the new data collected now 7 yrs later? :)

[@tanveernabil8451]

It's really strange how everything he is talking about is one of the main topics in 2019.

[@GuRuGeorge03]

shows how far detached society is from science at this point if it takes decades for ideas that are scientific consensus and are threatening to our very existence to spread into the general public. (decades because global warming caused by humans was already scientific consensus in the late 70s)

[@LOUDcarBOMB]

The interesting thing is too is that the idea of carbon dioxide raising global temperatures dates back to like a 1896 dated science paper, though it didn't say by any specific cause (though humans using fossil fuels is the main thing today).

[@eiyukabe]

@@LOUDcarBOMB And the green house effect and CO2's role in it was understood in the late 1850s/1860s. Well, it was _proven_ then, it was actually predicted before that.

[@LOUDcarBOMB]

@@eiyukabe I was going to type that out as well (the paper by Tyndall, but I didn't know about it being predicted before), but I got lazy since I did type it out in other YT comments on climate change and global warming vids.

[@theman389]

Uh this is uploaded in 2014

[@byrongsmith]

This would be more accurate if the sunglasses guy ended the video repeating the very same debunked claims he was making at the start, having learned precisely nothing.

[@gaemover6522]

"Debunked".

[@byrongsmith]

@@gaemover6522 Each of the claims made the figure with sunglasses was answered in such a way as to reveal the misunderstanding or misinformation behind it. To return to one of those claims and repeat it would be to reveal a level of comprehension far lower than an average high schooler (who, in my experience, are generally able to get this stuff, when it is explained clearly) and/or a hidden motive that is not interested in seeking to understand the truth.

[@qgqsrg1]

and he would use all the few "yes" parts of the answers as justifications while ignoring everything else, when rambling to someone else later on.

[@gaemover6522]

"This episode was sponsored by Merchants of doubt"...

[@byrongsmith]

@@gaemover6522 The book, "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming", by respected historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, is an excellent text. I highly recommend it. As did Veritasium when announcing the actual sponsor for this video: an audio book company who happen to have "Merchants of Doubt" as one of their texts.

[@theb6830]

I wish it was this easy to have arguments with the internet

[@StardustLegacyFighter]

@potatophant Facts.

[@johnb6723]

The UK’s most destructive hurricane occurred in medieval times and was even strong enough to blow down Norwich Cathedral’s spire, which then had to be replaced. Neither of the hurricanes of 1709 or 1987 managed to blow down the spire. So, hurricanes aren't getting atronger, but weaker.

[@YraxZovaldo]

So you are making this conclusion based on the effect of three hurricanes on a single building? Do you really don’t see the problem with that?

[@alexkennedy4990]

Do yourselves a favour and don't read the comments... Derek did a great job of predicting many of the arguments people would make, but of course, they will always make up more, or even bring up ones that were refuted in the video.

[@gufpott]

Alternatively, anybody who wants to hear a range of views should read-on. Why should the Climacatastrophologers have the chance to present their dismal attempt at science without reply. Derek tried to do the work of Big Green. It is politics and ideology, and there is not much science. Having stepped into this arena, it is only right and fair that the flaws in his ideology should be fully explored.

[@FitPhysioTherapy]

Alex - This video refuted nothing. The only real facts presented here was a graph that showed no warming and an admission that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 was 30 billion tons compared to the natural sources contribution of 780 billion tons (about 4% from man). What the video did not show is (almost everything else) that CO2 is only about 3,5% of the greenhouse (fact accepted even by IPCC). Also not shown on this video is the actual meat and potatoes of the AGCC model and the skeptics counter model. Not shown is the near perfect record of the AGCC model and AGCC supporters being totally incorrect in all warming projections and all there own predetermined indicators that would validate their model have not been realized (none of their own indicators exist). On the contrary all the data indicates that the skeptics model has been very accurate.

[@kunalgub]

FiT PT you realise that the amount of carbon realised by humans has increased exponentially since 1900? even if we contribute less than natural source, our contribution has increased at a pace which is not sustainable by our enviroment

[@gufpott]

kunal bhandari Who says our contribution is not sustainable by the environment? On what measures?

[@kunalgub]

gufpott read the comment I wrote for you on Sarah's comment thread

[@dogphlap6749]

Your global warming sceptic is far to open to rational argument.

[@PfropfNo1]

Here is your skeptic: Nice video but 1 mistake 3:45 „The only way for the atmosphere to hold more water vapor is if it gets warmer“ *thats wrong* . If I hang my clothes out after laundry, what happens to the water? _it evaporates into the atmosphere!_ humans breath out about 1kg of water day. 1 Million liters are evaporated to obtain 1 kg lithium. So why everyone is saying we can not add water to the atmosphere (besides by warming). That would be true at 100% relative humidity, which means fog. Yes I admit, my clothes are not drying on foggy days. But 99.9% of the time there is no fog, means I can efficiently dry my clothes in the sun and emit water vapor to the atmosphere. But... it rains! Yes, in average after 10 days (so called lifetime of water in the atmosphere). That means all our emission stay only for 10 days, compared to CO2 which basically stays forever (in human timescales). See? So water is no big deal! It is! The lifetime is very short but the consumption of water is absolutely fu**ing crazy huge! As mentioned in this video, humans effectively emit 15 gigatons of CO2 each year. Guess how much water? Not the same amount, not twice or thrice, not 10 times more, not 1000 times more. 1 000 000 (1 Million) gigatons a year. www.worldometers.info/water/ Wow, that is 60 000 times more than CO2. But it’s only the consumption! When I take a shower the water is not added to the atmosphere but back to the canalizations instead. Yes that’s right. Not all of the water is evaporated but the same source States that 70% of water consumption is used for agriculture. The plants absorb the water with the roots and evaporate it to the atmosphere over the leafs (that’s why they get dry if no water available). Also the water can evaporate directly from soil by the sun. Around 50% is evaporated another 50% becomes ground water. But let’s act like only 10% evaporates per year which would leave es with 100 000 gigatons a year (or 300 gigatons a day). It doesn’t matter how much it is. It will rain anyway... Yes, as mentioned after 10 days. Within 10 days we emit 3 000 gigatons to the atmosphere (mainly by agriculture). That means the water content is constantly 3000 gigatons higher than it should be. That’s around the amount of accumulated CO2 we emitted in 150 years! And H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas. Hmmm...

[@dogphlap6749]

@@PfropfNo1 The relative humidity at the earths surface is less than 100% most of the time. So most of the time it is not raining and your washing will dry on the line. I get that, It is colder at higher altitudes though, that is why the clouds are mostly above ground level. The relative humidity is generally below 100% at the earths surface, so what, the point is to change the total amount of water vapour in our atmosphere the temperature of the air has to change, just because not all the atmosphere is at the point of precipitation all the time does not change that.

[@PfropfNo1]

„the point is to change the total amount of water vapour in our atmosphere the temperature of the air has to change,“ „so most of the Time your (....) washing will dry on the line.“ Don’t you think it’s a direct contradiction? First you claim, for the atmosphere to take up water, it has to warm up. Then you say it takes up water anyway. Or do you mean clothes will only dry when the temperature changes? „just because not all the atmosphere is at the point of precipitation all the time does not change that.“ And that’s the exact point. As long there is somewhere some air in the atmosphere with less than 100% humidity, the air indeed has potential to take up more water! And that is until there is 100% everywhere. I mean the fact that you dry your clothes proofs that you are adding water to the atmosphere. Only when it has 100% everywhere the only way to take up more water is to increase temperature. And that’s for some reason the case everyone assumes apparently.

[@dogphlap6749]

@@PfropfNo1 No I don't think it's a direct contradiction. The air at the earth's surface has a relative humidity of less than 100% unless it is actually raining or dew is forming. That is because the air at the earth surface is warmer than air above it, that surface air mixes with the colder air from above, warming and thus lowering its relative humidity. You raise the temperature the moisture content of the atmosphere will increase not withstanding the fact the warm air at the earths surface is not saturated. We seem to have reached an impasse. I don't have anything new to say on this.

[@PfropfNo1]

„The air at the earth's surface has a relative humidity of less than 100% unless it is actually raining or dew is forming.“ Yes, and we emit at the surface. I mean I gave examples on which you agreed and you still deny it. You can also have a low humidity on higher altitudes. At 100% there will be clouds. No clouds mean potential water uptake. Everytime the sky is blue, the atmosphere is not saturated. And i Never denied that higher temperature can increase water content of air. I just said it’s not necessary to warm air in order to take up more water. Only when it’s saturated which you agreed is not the usual case. Basically you agreed on anything. Only denying the logical consequence

[@jbtwofour]

It's arrogant and egotistical to think that humans can save or destroy the planet.

[@YraxZovaldo]

CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas. So if it now suddenly isn’t a greenhouse gas you claim humans accidentally changed the fundamental prosperities of a molecule. That is way more arrogant.

[@bluesbr0ther588]

What do you think would happen if we cut down all the trees on the planet?

[@tanmaybhardwaj2185]

You are the who is arrogant Human littrely breath because of trees and corbon dioxide is damaging the ozone layer whe are not tadigrade who could survive these conditions

[@Vinegaroon]

Don’t worry we can counteract the effects of global warming with a nuclear winter.

[@MaxLohMusic]

Can you discuss the fact (or myth?) that ANIMAL LIVESTOCK raised to feed us meat eaters is actually contributing MORE to global warming than our fossil fuels? Seems like an important fact that is only recently gaining awareness.

[@MaxLohMusic]

***** That wouldn't raise awareness of the fact. It seems like something that's already confirmed but needs people like Veritasium telling people about it in order for people to actually start noticing.

[@awesome3912]

+Daniel Ragsdale This guy knows whatsup 2 different sites. Nice

[@benjaminbrohmer8866]

+Max Loh it is advocated by animal right groups. And yes livestock releases CO2 and Methane. For Methane it does goes to some reactions in the atmosphere and the carbon will end up as CO2, it is also metabolised by soil bacteria for energy and ends up as CO2. But you have a carbon cycle between pastures or meadows and livestock animals. Meaning the pasture or meadow absorbing the CO2 again. If you compare it with agriculture: Industrial agriculture leaves the soil often uncovered for a half year, during this period there is no CO2 absorption on this area. Also on pastures you have a lot of carbon bound in living organisms especially in the soil, on agricultural fields the soil contains much less living organisms. The humus layer is destroyed at least annually by ploughing. If you change pastures to fields you will release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.

[@Donari]

actally vegan diet hurts the earth more than normal diet with meat included

[@bassbaine]

sources please

[@RealestKraken56]

This guy is so nice he can only argue with himself

[@abduljalal5727]

He's Canadian. What'd you expect?

[@masksarelies391]

Hes using himself, because if he argued with a real scientist, he'd be exposed as a fraud. Each point is so full of short term data conclusions and in no way looks at the cyclical nature of climate. E.g. thr arctic ice uptick joke he makes by going back only to 1996. Phffftt. Go back to 1900 and watch the real cycle of ice happen 7 times between then and now.

[@soumyojitpal3399]

@@masksarelies391 ok, so can you explain this part 0:54 ?

[@masksarelies391]

@@soumyojitpal3399 you clearly did not notice the dork was talking about 14 hottest days on recocord that occurred in 20th century, then proceeds to display a chart FROM 1980? As if to insinuate, these were during this period. Show the chart from 1900............. Sheesh.....sucked in much?

[@65Wri]

​@@masksarelies391 He said "You know 13 of the 14 hottest years occurred this century" and the text displayed "13 of 14 hottest years on record all occurred in the 21st century". Go to 0:54 as per the above from SP and watch, turn on captions and you can read his words. Don't mind getting the details correct !

[@ingoknito5268]

As long as they cant accurately predict the weather for 3 fckin days I dont panic over predictions for the next century

[@dynamicflashy]

Ahh. Back when it was called "Global Warming" until the ice stopped melting.

[@boogathon]

Yes, for twenty years, while CO2 steadily ratcheted higher and higher. The alarmist contingent seems to completely ignore causality. Just an inconvenient fact, I suppose.

[@duytdl]

I love the "internet" persona. Bring him back!

[@seanleith5312]

This video is supposed to debunk global warming misconceptions, but itself is misconception. Now I know how deep the global warming propaganda has reached, amazing.

[@Josh-zr9by]

@@seanleith5312 Did you watch the video?

[@ExternusArmy]

@Sean, word of advice: if you’re refuting something as substantial or uncertain as climate change, modesty is a safe bet if you don’t have undeniable, reproducible, and substantiated evidence for such a claim. You might appear very foolish if you are wrong because you have acted so hubristic about an opinion that you have little to no certainty on.

[@TheQueenofNeckbeards]

Ehh, it seems a little condescending to the people with these misconceptions. Like yeah it's funny, but making fun of people just because they're wrong is kinda doodoo. (I'm a total hypocrite with this but I'm trying :') )

[@ryanmitchell6721]

You do realize that Veritasium IS the internet persona right? Right here on KZbin, poking fun at people that beleive differently than him, against all LOGICAL, actual scientific research, and sense. Its really pitiful how ignorant his followers in the comment sections actually are.

[@scopaf1662]

This is so much more productive than most similar videos. You presented the common fallacies that people cite without misrepresenting their points or making him some total knuckle dragging moron. People can watch this and [mostly] not feel personally attacked, which is something a whole lot of people seem to need to learn how to do.

[@lordralph9277]

Excellent point, fully agree

[@cinnamorollcute7118]

I feel moronic watching other youtube videos with fallacies

[@goartist]

wtf lol

[@ManDogBearPig]

nvm

[@antiantiderivative]

Although it is misrepresenting deniers my making it seem like they aren’t knuckle-dragging morons

[@bandit949]

So when are we taxing the big companies?

[@montithered4741]

Definitely need to tax big corporations for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

[@TheNaroCroc]

Yet there are literally less storms and natural disasters now than internet past.

[@Masaru_kun]

fossil fuels are only cheaper today because we've invested in the technologies for over a century. if we gave solar another decade or two, it'd be more efficient than oil ever was, and with oil prices (controlled by a desperate international cartel, mostly comprised of religious despots) only increasing in the foreseeable future, it only makes sense to invest in energies that will last forever...

[@shadymerchant1198]

solar will never be as reliable as coal that is why it was invested in so heavily solar also cannot be stored in a solid state that coal is in naturally you cannot transport solar energy without massive amounts of thick and expensive copper wiring vs a train running on iron tracks and steam it will also never be as efficient as entropy would wick away a good chuck of energy travel along regular wiring unless you use a superconductor but their are no superconductors that work at room temp and the amount of liquid nitrogen to cool the superconductors would be ruinously expensive there is also the problem with superconductors not liking letting go of the energy traveling along its path so you would still have a sizable amount of entropy from having to using regular conductors to make the energy in any usable from Solar and wind while decent in concept cannot be as efficient as coal or oil do to the fundamental forces of nature however we do have a good compromise in nuclear energy as it doesn't release Co2 is more efficient and newer reactors are physically incapable of melting down since they are already in a liquid state

[@rob28803]

You will only ever get about 850 watts per square metre, with a sun tracking array. That's all the energy there is to get, it is not possible to collect any more because there isn't any more to collect. To replace _all_ our current fossil-fuel usage with solar, it would take _thousands of square miles_ of solar panels in every country. Goodness knows how much energy they would take to produce, and they would only be working for half the day.

[@daviddetweiler4161]

+rob28803 Source?

[@aikslf]

What about countries with cold and cloudy climates? In Canada it's cloudy and there's no sun during most of the year.

[@Yamyatos]

Actually solar energy is potentially what could easily solve our whole energy problems. Assuming you put them in a place with a lot of sun, the area you would have to cover for energy production is tiny. Put a small coin on a globe in the middle of africa - that's about how much area we would need to cover in order to produce enough energy to cover *all of* our energy demands. Of course, it sounds better in theory than it would be in praxis. The energy needs to be transported and other places dont have as much sun. Still, it's not like regenerative energy sources are not a good option, contrary to what many people believe.

[@enzodougherty9429]

If the slope is plus, the climate's sus

[@The_Kini]

Welcome to the future 😂

[@Coolsomeone234]

Bruh

[@melon4738]

Well said

[@fyfrrez]

This comment is more convincing for the internet then the video.

[@number-ey8lz]

Chips ahoy

[@boblevieux]

I have not heard anywhere yet about the heat generated by the spreading of air conditioning appliances.

[@bettypearson5570]

it's nice to hear some reasonable facts about climate change than the hysteria from the proponents. I still remember in science class in the 60's when discussing ice aged and the science teacher explained that we are always either going into or coming out of an ice age but because the process is so slow (at that time) they didn't know which way it was going. then there was discussion about the different things that they thought might influence it which included human activities. I would have loved to have had information available today back then. part of the problem is that when scientists get some interesting data and release it, it isn't necessarily the whole answer but certain people will go around screaming about death to humanity in 10 years unless . . . Politicians love it because they want to keep people in a state of fear because it makes them more willing to be controlled and accepting of things like more regulations (forced compliance by government) and taxes to combat the problem. unfortunately most of the new taxes collected end up in the politicians' pockets one way or another instead of fixing the problem. just look at all the increased restrictions for oil production and transportation this administration put into effect causing prices to skyrocket. in recent months it has been blamed on the Ukraine situation however those prices began skyrocketing before Ukraine due to higher gas taxes and lower US production. so what did our govt do? first, they started getting more oil from Venezuela, helping provide income to a corrupt socialist government who doesn't have as many environmental controls as the US meaning more harm to the environment. And how much energy did it take to transport that oil here? Second, instead of that increasing availability of oil and slowing down the costs to Americans they send it to China, a country that is not only an enemy (any country threatening us with war is in my opinion an enemy) but one of the major contributors of environmental damage in the world. And how much energy was used to transport it to them? I'll even give an example of some released data that triggered hysteria, as well as many jokes from the other side. Cow farts being a major contributors of greenhouse gasses. because cows are bred for milk production and human consumption many started running around screaming that we needed to become vegans or at least vegetarians to save the world. all meat eaters were now guilty of destroying our planet. I am not denying that excessive cow farting can be bad but there were unanswered questions. was it all cows or just those in feedlots and large dairies who have a very high grain/corn diet? what about cows who subsist mostly on a natural (for them) diet of pastured grasses? How do they rate fartwise? Sounds hilariously ridiculous, doesn't it? but actually it isn't. let's look at the human population of people who have celiac disease, IBS or gluten intolerance. All of these have a basis in grains/corn and for the majority of sufferers one of the many symptoms is increased flatulence. should we start imposing an extra tax on those individuals because of their detrimental impact on climate change? Does anyone remember mad cow disease? caused because humans in all their wisdom started grinding up sheep parts and mixing it with grains to save money on manufactured cow feed. If cows were returned to their biologically natural diet all their symptoms, including farting will probably decrease. People forget that North America used to have herds of bison as far as the eye could see, covering more area than all the cows in our entire country today yet there is no evidence that they contributed to climate change. meanwhile, if you do believe that you are blessed with supreme knowledge about what will save the world, apply it to yourself before you insist on others changing their lives. When a politician starts opting for zoom meetings instead of flying all over the world in government jets for little more than a tax paid Vaca and photo op, or downsizes from their 6000 sf home to a 1200 sf with solar panels and uses less than 800 kw per month and recycles I might start believing they believe what they are saying.

[@bluesbr0ther588]

Perhaps you should use facts instead. All this nonsense about taxing humans for flatulence isn't useful in a climate debate. Humans don't emit Methane the same way cows do. And it is not the farts, it is from the burps. The reason for that is because cows are ruminants, which means that they have 4 stomachs.

[@lunaz_here]

bro wrote a whole-ass book

[@boogathon]

@@lunaz_here Hold my beer...

[@jorgediaz2247]

3:48 - This is inaccurate. He wouldn't actually be listening to you.

[@bryanruiz1874]

I am

[@SaveWesternCivilisation]

As a proud climate denier I do listen to your points, they brighten up a dull day and give me a hearty chortle 😄

[@RevvedUpProgess]

@@SaveWesternCivilisation "Proud climate denier",, u mean u havent actually done any good research And everything is probably "fake news" to you.

[@SaveWesternCivilisation]

@@RevvedUpProgess I'll put down my banjo and spit out my chewing tobacco so I can type a reply with two fingers while mouthing the words I type and mouth-breathing...Damn, an alligator just ate my airboat, I'll hafta grab my gun from my pickup to shoot it...etc...Glad I made your day, champ. Cheerio!

[@OneDerscoreOneder]

@@SaveWesternCivilisation what

[@emiros]

I don't even know who to believe anymore, I remember when science wasn't politicized, science SHOULDN'T be politicized, now if I want to do my own research about something like climate change, most websites/sources seem to give more of an opinion rather than facts, some scientists say one thing and others say something entirely different. I'm someone who's passionate about science and I've always understood science is based on facts, facts do not variate, they're not like opinions, there are not different facts to a same topic, at least not generally. Now, it seems like all we get are politicized and bias lies, everywhere.

[@_Stargazer_.]

I feel you bruv ... We also have reasonable points against global warming , calling it a hoax .. But then again facts for it are strong too ... I have no idea wat and who to believe .. If the world were just true and if eveone would see money as just a piece of paper .

[@NapoleonGelignite]

We know that CO2 is increasing the GHE as nights are warming faster than days, and because the stratosphere is cooling. This means the Sun can’t be causing the warming. The predicted feedbacks - such as methane release from permafrost - are now being observed. The science is strong, the reason it is controversial is because of what it probably means - agriculture will fail within a century. People don’t want to accept this as we want the future to look like the past with better gadgets.

[@tjay5837]

The truth is that it's complicated. Scientists are just people experienced in interpreting measurements. Historically scientists have been both right and wrong and (except for malicious intents) that's because using statistics you can prove pretty much any argument even ones contradicting with each other. At the end of the day what matters is that the discussion takes place and the rest will follow. To me, the problem seems to lie with people who are unwilling to engage in civilized conversations because they see those that stand against them as indoctrinated or even evil and therefore unworthy of their time. That last part can sometimes be attributed to politics as well as different ideologies etc. Personally I do tend to lean towards climate change being a real thing that needs to be addressed at some point. But I too, have heard compelling arguments from both sides. And really, the major reason why those opposed to the idea that the climate is changing, are against doing something to reduce our impact is because most proposed plans are bad for the economy. So why not work together on finding a middle ground that both reduces the impact and also creates business opportunity? The threat (if you believe that there is one) might be imminent or it might not be imminent. But the solution will surely be implemented progressively and not at once. Never bite off more than you can chew. And don't forget that the earth is fine. It's been here long before we arrived and will be long after we're gone. It's not the earth we're trying to save. It's our asses. Just my two cents (probably more than that judging by the wordcount)

[@samshaw9772]

Just because a certain political party likes to frame Climate Change as a matter of choice with two equally valid sides, doesn't mean that's true. The fact is that one side has emperical evidence and 90%+ of climate scientists on their side, and the other doesn't. Worth reading about asymmetrical polarization, if you're wondering how things like belief I'm climate change can be made to seem politicized.

[@brian4019]

Global warming is only a political debate, the scientific community has concluded it is human - caused. Science has moved on.

[@groovy_bear]

Unfortunately, it IS going to be some sort of crazy catastrophe. Past +2 degrees celcius of global warming, tipping points are likely to be triggered and positive feedback loops are likely to become out of control and beyond mitigation capacities for humans. In these conditions, crop yields are predicted to plummet regardless of adapting efforts, large swaths of the tropical regions will become uninhabitable due to heat and humidity being too high for mammals (like us) to survive outside for a good part of the year. Hundreds of millions would then be forced to migrate. Forest fires numbers and intensity will sore in temperate and boreal regions, which in itself is a health issue for humans, but is also a positive feedback loop for global warming. Sea level rise will only start to really kick in later, but when it does, it will render a lot of coastal countries uninhabitable in the span of decades to centuries. I don't know if that does not sound like some sort a catastrophe to you, but it definitely does to me. BTW I really enjoy your content, so keep it up :)

[@sars5813]

The only video. On the internet that made me understand climate change

[@EwemizDreamsRawks]

Internet: *gets one fact right out of like a thousand biased opinions guised as facts* "I win."

[@animecrafter100]

Raymond Stemmer r/woosh?

[@newsflashasshole7205]

If global warming is real why is my fridge cold? Heh checkmate atheist you need to braise jesus more

[@Xenibalt]

parabot2 1 week ago The Priest/Scientist with Bible/Data = Do what i say or burn in Hell/Earth . Hast tho fallen for the eldest trick in the scroll .

[@frankcastle4715]

Mount saint Helens dumped 1000× more pollution than all humanity the last 3 centuries.

[@kelakakku]

Can't be true because the earth is flat.

[@Immadeus]

Idiots, don't you realize the earth is a cube.

[@helioph272]

The Earth is actually a tesseract cube, mere mortals like yourself cannot percieve this

[@Unexpectedthings007]

There is no earth

[@Unexpectedthings007]

@@strangelyukrainian7314 man i dont believe yesterday my experiment shows that actually we r not living on earth we are living on mars which is a flat planet and earth is a hoax created by goverment

[@Unexpectedthings007]

@@strangelyukrainian7314 thanks for clarifying I was also confused with mars and Venus but i think also think there is no deep space just our Venus and thats it all the thing we see in the sky are hoax by government

[@roytanisha]

"Why are you waring sunglasses?" "Global Warming"

[@sytrostormlord3275]

I'd say, it would be nice to increase the participation of forest on land mass -> trees naturaly absorb both CO2 and water when they grow (fun fact -> CO2 and water are main substances that living things on Earth are made of...)

[@F2PMegaGod]

I think you might be confusing Carbon with Carbon Dioxide. Most lifeforms are Carbon based, meaning Carbon is an essencial element in most molecules. We arent made of Carbon Dioxide, we activelly expell it from our bodies.

[@CommandoBlack123]

Nah, we gotta cut those down to make cardboard straws because of plastic straws or something. And then put masks in the water because the plastic straws weren’t enough.

[@sweettoko995]

@@CommandoBlack123 Nah we gotta cut those down to make more room for cash crops and such.

[@mankind-redefined1982]

Careful there that's logic, logic is about to be outlawed.

[@redox2596]

reason never wins

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

Critical thinking is about to be outlawed. In 2012 the Texas GOP said it opposed the teaching of critical thinking skills because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.” Really.

[@merlin4972]

fred fredson Those damn commies, man. But on a serious note, can you explain how what he said is related to "Bolshevik propaganda"?

[@GTOberfest]

Mankind - Redefined yes by liberals, elitists and foolish climate scam believers.

[@merlin4972]

GTOberfest Why do you think climate change is a scam? And what elitist benefit from reducing profit of multiple industries.

[@morry7380]

"if we just started reducing emissions now", its 2020 and its still a joke

[@yomer355]

We've reduced a lot of emissions due to the pandemic alone.

[@morry7380]

@@yomer355 kinda on accident wasnt planned by someone

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

@@yomer355 yes but not enough... sadly

[@barrymadden6860]

@@yomer355 That's true, and I'm very curious to see the impacts it has on climate change. Bare minimum, a massive disruption like this, should yield us data that's pretty conclusive.

[@nihalh6482]

@@yomer355 it will go right back up in a short while.

[@sh230968]

You have singlehandedly given me more info on the subject than I knew. Well, well, it is the two of you.

[@boogathon]

It would have helped if all the information was factual.

[@psltmtir]

@@boogathon What part of the information wasn't factual?

[@StuntcatTV]

One thing I'm interested in are the melting pole caps on mars

[@bluesbr0ther588]

Why?

[@StuntcatTV]

@@bluesbr0ther588 Because according to pictures of Nasa the CO2 pole caps on Mars are sublimating since thirty years and Mars seems to warm up at about the same rate as earth. And there is no human CO2 emission on Mars.

[@bluesbr0ther588]

@@StuntcatTV It has to do with the Milankovitch cycles where Mars' tilt is a bit different than Earth's.

[@StuntcatTV]

@@bluesbr0ther588 Ah, thank you, I will check that out. Hope that I'll spell it right :)

[@mistafizz5195]

@@bluesbr0ther588 you're doing God's work, well not really, but I can definitely appreciate it.