How science can combat climate change conspiracies - Whose Truth? The Documentary, BBC World Service

[@larrydugan1441]

What's weird is that NASA reports the earth as greening and clearly crop yields are up. How strange is that?

[@grindupBaker]

Yes CO2 is wildfire fuel all right just as you wisely pointed out. CO2 is LITERALLY wildfire fuel and CO2 is literally the ONLY available fuel on Earth for wildfires, and humans just now in 100 years or so added 50% to that wildfire fuel compared with the last couple of million years of maximum wildfire fuel supply on Earth by taking carbon that belonged 300 million years ago but got itself buried instead of burning and humans just now put it into the "endless" cycle driven by the Almighty Sun of burn it, photosynthesize it, burn it, photosynthesize it, burn it, photosynthesize it, burn it, photosynthesize it, over and over and over and over again ... in modern times. Meanwhile causing droughts and a hotter land for the forests to be on. Good luck with that during the centuries to come people. Wildfire Heaven.

[@Hako_ware]

It's not strange at all. Monoculture crop farming with 0 biodiversity isn't good. No matter how green the colour of the crops. Then all of the Co2 the crops absorbed gets sent back into the atmosphere on harvest. Which isn't the same for biodiverse native old growth forests. Pretty reductive thinking that Green=Good.

[@darrenb3830]

@@Hako_ware They don't understand concepts that go beyond a childish interpretation of the climate. 'CO2 is plant food' is a common trope, as if climate scientists don't understand this.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@Hako_ware your missing the fact that it is the natural ecosystems that are greening as a result of increased co2 .the food boost is a double win as more land can be put back to nature .whats not to like about co2 .

[@ceeemm1901]

If you are a science teacher in school then you have to be clued up about CC. It's a science dilemma that is taking place right here, right now, as Norman Cook would say. So it should be the most relevant topic in the science class.

[@absmith6237]

…..and how a good citizen should pay the fresh air tax to our betters.

[@deeznutz8320]

Nope teach them about race and IQ thats more important than climate

[@ceeemm1901]

@@absmith6237 How is a "goat sitting Zen" going to "antics" our "butters'?....your turn to say something cryptic again....

[@OldScientist]

There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022).

[@OldScientist]

@ThePursuitWOD The "destruction to wildlife" seems to be resulting in declining rates of extinction, which is peculiar. Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data). There is no climate crisis.

[@jmcdtucson]

This misinformation is a great example of what they're talking about in the video.

[@OldScientist]

@@jmcdtucson How am I misinformed?

[@OldScientist]

@jmcdtucson How is what I have presented misinformation? All the data is from reputable institutions or peer reviewed material published in scientific journals? Have you considered "misinformation" to be itself a misnomer for information that is unfavourable to a narrative developed by elites?

[@birbatron987]

I know I'm unlikely to convince you, but this message is more for anyone else out there who may be led astray by the argument being made. First and foremost, it's important to define what a disaster is. The terms "extreme weather event" and "natural disaster" are not interchangeable. According to CRED, an extreme weather event is only classed as a disaster if it meets one or more of the following: at least 10 people must die, 100 or more people must be affected, a state of emergency must be declared, or there must be a call for international assistance. Therefore, just because there are fewer extreme weather events classified as disasters, it doesn't mean there are fewer extreme weather events happening. You are correct in saying that there have been fewer disasters and deaths linked to these disasters. However, this trend can largely be explained by the success of improved mitigation measures, not an improvement in the climate itself. For example, earthquake warning systems in Japan, early flood detection, and advanced storm forecasting have all helped reduce casualties. In fact, early warning systems alone are estimated to reduce disaster-related deaths by up to 60%, according to the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Furthermore, between 2000 and 2019, disaster risk reduction strategies, including mitigation, are estimated to have saved 1.3 million lives globally. Another important point to consider is that just because direct deaths have decreased doesn't mean there aren't other impacts being felt. Extreme events, such as droughts or floods, can lead to crop failures and food insecurity-an indirect form of harm that isn’t fully captured by casualty statistics. This relatively narrow definition of what constitutes a disaster can leave out the broader, often more severe, indirect consequences of climate-related events. In short, the decrease in disasters and direct deaths can largely be explained by better mitigation. However, as the climate worsens, it’s critical to recognize that mitigation alone won’t be enough. We need proactive measures that address the root causes of climate change alongside disaster preparedness.

[@OldScientist]

This video lacks scientific foundations. Quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.

[@OldScientist]

@ThePursuitWOD There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence).

[@PSA78]

Both sides need to take responsibility, the green movement hasn't exactly made themselves believable all the time. There's a lot of money (trillions?) in polarising and then greenwashing.

[@DelusionalDoug]

In 1950, the population of Africa was estimated to be between 220 million and 240 million people. Today it’s almost 1.5 billion. The birthrate is over 4.3 children/woman; twice as high as the rest of the world.

[@ceeemm1901]

That's that affluent Capitalism for you!

[@Aanthanur]

yet, most of the limate change was caused by the rich countries in Europe and north America.

[@absmith6237]

Thank you Billy Boy Gate’s 🤠. It must feel like a personal failure that humanity is thriving. ⚠️ 💉 ⚠️

[@bingpz]

@@Aanthanur Wrong. Wood fires in under develpped countries accounts for a lot of pollution, more than you think.

[@helgefan8994]

@@bingpz It's you who's wrong here, looking at the numbers. CO2 emissions per person per year: Africa: 1 tonne South America: 2.5 tonnes Asia: 4.6 tonnes Europe: 7.1 tonnes Oceania: 10 tonnes North America: 10.3 tonnes And those are just the emissions today. If you take past emissions into account, the discrepancy gets larger. So I think regarding greenhouse gases, Africa is the most climate-friendly populated continent. Or are you talking about something else?

[@OldScientist]

There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!

[@komousch]

You should read whole IPCC report...

[@MegaDeano1963]

Facts annoy those who don't know them

[@komousch]

@@MegaDeano1963 And people like you, who know no facts at all are happy. Lucky them ;-)

[@darrenb3830]

@@komousch They read what they want to read. Literally in that chapter it states the opposite to what they are claiming. Not only that, but they are using the IPCC as a source of evidence and don't get the irony of it, when throughout the reports they make it unequivocally clear that anthropogenic climate change is real. They are either being deliberate or have the reading comprehension of an infant.

[@zrirukishizutakiari]

Well, he literally cites the part of the report alarmists seem unaware of

[@This.Island.Earth68]

Maybe Paul Nurse should stand up in a nationally televised debate against 2022 Nobel Prize winner John F Clauser who has publicly denied the existence of a climate crisis?

[@stevehewitt1151]

I'd love to watch that!

[@milespostlethwaite1154]

The official figures published by the UN IPCC and even the British met office show that there is NO increase in extreme weather events. If anything they are decreasing.

[@komousch]

Nope, official figures document, there are more severe extreme weather event. 🤷‍♂

[@milesthom3201]

Evidence?​@@komousch

[@komousch]

​@@milesthom3201 Why? You write bulshit, why should I spend time bringing all the facts? CC is bringing more extreme weather events, prove me wrong! (And if you are really desperate, you can start with checking IPPC AR6 WG1 11.7.1 for example, and than make a comprehensive report about whole chapter 11.😘) And for your next comment, do not cherrypick the data my dear, thnx.

[@marksouthern7542]

Agreed. How does the BBC get away with thus rubbish?

[@marksouthern7542]

​@@komouschWhat document? Show me data that shoes increases in wind speeds, hurricanes, flooding. The IPCC (UN) does NOT attribute any increases of extreme weather to human caused climate change apart from temperature and rates of precipitation (while explicitly stating, no increase in flooding). See AR6 working group 1, chapter 12, table 12.

[@Neekamhakane]

Your positive energy radiates through the screen!

[@absmith6237]

Nobody does state sponsored propaganda like BBC.

[@grindupBaker]

THAT'S what's warming the planet. See I told you the CO2 was a hoax.

[@teyhoonboon5853]

Countries are badly hit by climate disasters may aware the critical issue of climate change. On the contrary, country with little impact from climate change may take climate issue lightly . Therefore , the tropic of climate change may become a long-term issue for the world to overcome of it.

[@OldScientist]

Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (

[@komousch]

That is true, that thanks to fossil fuels low price, we are able to live better lives. But it does not contraditc two facts: 1) burning fossil fuels makes our planet warmer (in a freaky rapid phase), which is a problem for planetary systems we depend on. 2) we have enough technology / money / knowledge to keep our standart of living, and get rid of fossil fuels in the process.

[@bakedbean37]

@@komousch "get rid of fossil fuels" I should think that's the last thing @OldScientist here wants. I'm convinced he's working for the industry when you see how much of this nonsense dis-info he spews under so many videos on the topic.

[@OldScientist]

​@bakedbean37 Nonsense dis-info are just awkward scientific data that doesn't fit with your world view.

[@bakedbean37]

@@OldScientist Said the archetypal cherry picking troll.

[@OldScientist]

@@bakedbean37 “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Socrates.

[@OhYeah32]

With the push for population growth in the uk that can’t be good. 12 million from overseas and millions more to come means concreting over the greenbelt and building on carbon storage areas. Yet the media doesn’t latch on more concerned about Katie Prices new hair do. 😢😢😢😢😢

[@cdes68]

Nature will cull humans.

[@HeavyMetal45]

Oh well

[@Racoon_UK]

We are the last generation 😊I trust BBC about climate change.

[@4362mont]

Which includes humans culling humans, and culling themselves.

[@ceeemm1901]

George Carlin ws a prophet!

[@absmith6237]

I’m sure that’s what our scientists will do first ( think :Astra Eugenica, Murderna and Shiezsters )

[@JousungKim-ji6hz]

“GDP continues to grow by 8%”... Indian economy racing✨[Hello India]

[@danielrawlings8355]

@@JousungKim-ji6hz Whatabout GDP per capita?

[@andrewtrip8617]

Still one of the coldest June’s in the U.K. .as much as I want to believe it’s getting warmer it’s just not happening !

[@komousch]

The problem is not average June temperature in UK, but the global average temperature. Do you see the difference? ;-)

[@bingpz]

@@komousch The temperatures are measured within urban areas, take the monitoring station at the end of one of Heathrows runways. Of course they will register higher temperatures they have more concrete surrounding them. Deep ocean measurments are unchanged, you are being manipulated.

[@komousch]

@@bingpz Holly shit, you are using such a basic dezinfo arguments? You can do better! 1) temperatures are measured not only within urban areas. 2) deep ocean is unchanged, because the main problem is rissing temperature of troposphere. Btw. speaking of oceans, shallow part of them is wamer. (What do you think, why is that?)

[@MegaDeano1963]

@bingpz you hit the nail on the head, You would think they would remove all contaminated data in order to see what is really happening to temperature.

[@komousch]

@@MegaDeano1963 Please, try you best and bring at least one „sort of ok“ argument. Thnx.

[@paal8193]

What a stupid animated graphics BBc have come up with here... Why not just film the people speaking ?

[@absmith6237]

They may tell the truth !

[@lindafarnes486]

Biggest problem isn't proving it, it's the apathy of the general population and politicians of minimal intellect, with no vision beyond the size of their wallets.

[@grindupBaker]

Yep you da Man there (or you da Lady, whatever)

[@DelusionalDoug]

Students should be learning math, science, and languages. Not political agendas. Greta is a political activist; not a climate scientist. Alarmists usually use hysteria and hyperbole instead of facts and statistics.

[@Nemrai]

Greta has never claimed to be a scientist, she's saying that we need to Listen to the scientists about global warming.

[@absmith6237]

Ah !! That’s why they can’t tell the difference between a boy and a girl. Even today’s Professors are bewildered. 🤷‍♂️

[@solarwind907]

Your argument has no basis. Greta follows the science. She’s got the data. If you’ve got anything to back up, your opinion post a link to it here. Otherwise, it’s just a normal BS from deniers.

[@solarwind907]

You seem to be the only one that doesn’t know the difference between a boy and a girl on these comment boards. Pretty weird.

[@absmith6237]

@@solarwind907 Greta……..Hitler Youth pin up , defo .

[@bingpz]

The climate stats started at the end of the mini ice age. Do you think the planet would get colder when an Ice age finishes??

[@LuciannaG123]

I call all science sceptics flat earthers now. Some of them actually get quite stroppy . Hopefully, they will re-evaluate their daft attitude.

[@robertplant2059]

I asked a coworker if it was possible the sun moved closer to the earth or the earth moved closer to the sun and I was told I was a moron. I ask why when I was young noon was considered the hottest part of the day and now it is 4 or 5 PM, what changed?

[@kmoses582]

Are you talking about Al Gore?

[@LuciannaG123]

@robertplant2059 your co worker was correct.

[@LuciannaG123]

@@kmoses582 flerf alert.🤣

[@silentwilly2983]

Science can only do its job properly when there is a good amount of skeptic debate. Fact is that several scientific fields deal with a replication crisis either due to massaging the data (p hacking) or due to outright fraud. There is really no reason not to be skeptic as the incentives in climate science don't align with doing good science.

[@OldScientist]

The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution. Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution. Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution. increased lightning: not detected, no attribution. Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution. There is no climate crisis.

[@darrenb3830]

You have completely misinterpreted the report. It does not state for example increased flooding not detected, no attribution. Quotes AR6 WG1 11.5.1: "Yet, as very extreme precipitation can become a dominant factor for river floods, there can be some correspondence in the changes in very extreme recipitation and river floods. This has been observed in the western Mediterranean, in China and in the USA... In regions with a seasonal snow cover, snowmelt is the main cause of extreme river flooding over large areas (Pall et al., 2019). Extensive snowmelt combined with heavy and/or long-duration precipitation can cause significant floods". AR6 WG1 11.5.2: "In summary, the seasonality of floods has changed in cold regions where snowmelt dominates the flow regime in response to warming (high confidence).There is low confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale, but there are regions experiencing increases, including parts of Asia, Southern South America, northeast USA, north-western Europe, and the Amazon, and regions experiencing decreases, including parts of the Mediterranean, Australia, Africa, and south-western USA.". Your statement is factually incorrect.

[@OldScientist]

@darrenb3830 Specifically the UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising! How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.

[@darrenb3830]

@@OldScientist "There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None." And yet in your own quote, it literally states for agricultural drought for example "14 medium confidence". That's if we just accept your incredibly poor interpretation of what it is actually saying. So even at your interpretation level, your final statement is still FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

[@darrenb3830]

@@OldScientist "How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6?" I literally gave you some from the exact chapter you referred to that completely disproved your overall claim. You can't pick and choose from the report what you wish to accept. You either accept the IPCC reports as evidence or not, and if you don't, you better be able to provide credible evidence to the contrary. But since you are the one that brought it as evidence, we can simply use statements within it to completely dismantle your claim. Which I just did.

[@OldScientist]

@@darrenb3830 But 42 out of 45 regions have a low confidence in human attribution. The climate is changing as you would expect - it has to change - but humans are not causing that change.

[@OldScientist]

There are over 5 million excess deaths per annum globally due to abnormal temperatures from the 2000-2019 study led Prof. Guo of Monash University. It found that over 90% of excess deaths were caused by excess COLD rather than excess heat. So, in a world with increasingly mild temperatures, there will be less excess death. Lives will be saved. Warming is good not bad. A 2022 Lancet study reported 791 heat-related excess deaths and 60,753 cold-related excess deaths in England and Wales each year during the years spanning 2000-2019. That’s an excess death ratio of about 85 to 1 for cold vs. hot temperatures. Due to warmer urban temperatures, the number of premature cold-related excess deaths avoided averaged 447 per year from 1976-2019 in the city of London alone (Hajat et, 2024).

[@komousch]

Lovely cherrypicking! Unfortunately, it is not only about „excess death per annum globally, to abnormal temperatures“, climate change is changing natural systems are society is dependable on.

[@MegaDeano1963]

Using facts will just annoy the doom cults

[@komousch]

@@MegaDeano1963 I am always happy, when people are supporting their oppinions with cheerypicked data. Do you use it also in other topics of your life?

[@MegaDeano1963]

I don't think you're happy

[@OldScientist]

@@komousch So global objective data is cherry-picking, but the single uncorroborated story from a non-scientist stranger in Africa is to be accepted unconditionally as totally relevant. Bollox.

[@michaelhodges1749]

Follow the science - like we did with covid get lost.

[@Acccountable]

There is absolutely climate change, has been for over 4,500,000,000 years. What do humans have to do with it? NADA, ZERO, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000%

[@enlilly2405]

During lockdown, ozone hole got closed and as lockdown was removed the ozone hole reemerged. And the temperature is riding higher and higher. How much evidence for you want that the climate is changing.

[@michaelhodges1749]

@@enlilly2405 They should start cutting industry 3 day week Then I may start thinking it could be true

[@Acccountable]

@@enlilly2405 You are correct, the climate is changing, has been for 4.5 billion years, let me know if you need help on what a billion is. Did we have a lock down in the 1930's when it was hotter for a full decade and only a billion people?

[@peterjol]

Sadly The Many millions of people who work directly or indirectly in the fossil fuel industries simply don't want to believe in climate change (regardless of whether it's true or not) because they don't want to lose their 'jobs' and the only way you could quickly provide them with alternative jobs and incomes would be to make it financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs we NEED people to do and to work much less.

[@Hovite_Wanderer]

Not true. They know climate change has always occurred since the world was formed. There is a world wide conspiracy of hysteria hiding the truth that fossil fuels are not rising temperatures. It's a lie.

[@absmith6237]

That’s because they are not easily fooled. Gullible commentator 📺🐑.

[@DanParris-q2p]

Brilliant documentary

[@absmith6237]

…..yeah ,almost believable 😂

[@byMarg]

Great for studying structure of propaganda

[@absmith6237]

@@byMarg Oh yes 👍

[@OldScientist]

It is estimated that 5.1 million people annually die in association with non-optimal temperatures. 4.6 million are link to the cold, so over 90% (Zhao et al, 2021). And it is worst in the warmer parts of the world. 98% of temperature related deaths in SubSaharan Africa are due to the cold. Temperature events may be linked to upto 10% of human deaths annually. In a warming world there will be less death.

[@bakedbean37]

"In a warming world there will be less death." Less death from hypothermia maybe but I doubt that will be much consolation to those dying from the other effects of the heat. More crop failures due to climate instability will cause famines and wars for a start. When those record mid day temperatures spike higher and higher and the wet bulb temperature with it heat related deaths among even perfectly healthy people will rise. Less deaths from hypothermia of frail old people with inadequate shelter, clothing and food will unlikely be cause for much celebration. When the glacier fed rivers run dry that support vast populations will those people be consoled that there were people like you going around telling them to look on the bright side?

[@OldScientist]

@bakedbean37 What do you know about glaciers? The retreat of Himalayan glaciers began before the current warming and was caused by reduced precipitation (Shekhar, 2017. Singh, 2020.). This supported by further work done by Schneider (2014), and Chen (2019). The retreat was due to a reduction in precipitation. Currently, precipitation is half of what it was 20 years previously. Research by Salerno (2015) "challenges the assumption of the main driver [i.e. temperature] of glacier mass changes". Satellite data shows the glaciers in the Karakoram largely unaffected by current warming. Of 1219 glaciers surveyed, 79.5% were stable, 5.3% were advancing, and 7.6% retreating (Rankl, 2014). Swiss Alps glacier extents were smaller than 2000 C.E. during the warmer-than-today Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and throughout 75% of the Holocene, or when temperatures were 1-3°C warmer (Schimmelpfennig et al., 2022). Glaciologists Bohleber et al, 2020 of the Austrian Academy of Science discovered from ice cores that the 3500-meter high Weißseespitze summit was ice free 5900 years ago. There is “no evidence” that Jostedalsbreen, a southern Norway glacier, even existed during the first several thousand years of the Holocene, or when CO2 hovered near 260 ppm (Winker, 2021). There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. Glacial retreat is certainly not evidence of this.

[@grindupBaker]

"there will be less death" S.B. "there will be less human death"

[@OldScientist]

@@grindupBaker There will certainly be more life as the Earth has greened dramatically. More plants = more animals. All over this increasingly verdant planet. Wonderful.

[@johnmorgan5495]

Paul Nurse says " Understanding Climate is complex " and he's right. So what about the thousands of scientists who have worked in and around climate associated sciences for 30 40 some 50 years and are called "deniers " when they disagree ? And I mean scientists who have been or are part of the IPCC .

[@user-rh6ru5oz2o]

What about the thousands of TIMES more scientists who support climate change? You want to talk about numbesr right?

[@scottekoontz]

Sure, there are maybe 100 "skeptic" scientists left, but most of them work for Heartland. When an actual scientist disagrees, they write a paper for review. When a denier disagrees (Watts, Moncton, Bast, Morano, Epstein, Heller, Moore, Curry) they complain on right-wing media but do not write a paper for review. 100 vs 10,000s. Hmmm, believe those writing papers or those working for Heartland. Tough choice.

[@Kwippy]

Science isn't a democracy. A thousand mistaken scientists don't out rank one single right one.

[@davek5839]

Which scientists is that? The overwhelming body of evidence shows that the planet has heated up, I don't see how they can question this hard fact, they might question the seriousness of it perhaps.

[@silentwilly2983]

@@davek5839 A lot of the weather stations have over time moved from rural areas to more urban areas due to expanding cities. It is well known that cities are heat islands. Further, being skeptic of the narrative doesn't necessarily mean questioning a rising temperature. Fact is that earth temperatures vary all the time, from a cold snowball earth to balmy tropical forests on Antarctica. Many people contribute the warming, in whole or in part, to natural fluctuations, fact is that the current rise started in what is called the little ice age and that correlation with human co2 emissions is not exactly one. CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but how this impacts temperature is hard to determine as there are all kinds of feed back mechanisms in the climate. Not sure about all the data, but there certainly have been times in history where temperature rises preceded co2 rises. I don't know what the truth is, but I do know that both sides of the debate utter loads of nonsense. If you look at science broadly, there are several areas of science that have a replication crisis. Without doubt part of this is 'genuine' errors, but massaging data (p-hacking) and outright fraud are significant contributors too. In climate science the incentives are not exactly aligned with doing good objective science, many billions, if not trillions of dollars in research grands, subsidies and business opportunities are tied to the existence of a climate crisis, so there are certainly reasons to be skeptic.

[@bartroberts1514]

The truth? Industrialization was never the cause of the upsurge of fossil emissions from bitumen, coal, gas and oil: mechanization of warfare and colonization were. But warfare means defense, and defense is patriotic, so fossil trade gained the halo of patriotism for many. We knew the pollution was harmful, but fear of 'the enemy' was greater than fear of what we were doing to each other through tailpipes and smokestacks. Then, well-meaning thinkers like Vaclav Smil started preaching that poverty was worse than pollution, excusing any excess of emissions, as if there were no choice but fossil. Now, we know those views are simply wrong on technical grounds. Asymmetric warfare sees cardboard drones powered by batteries sinking warships fueled by heavy oil for less than a penny on the dollar. Fossil no longer guarantees defense: it guarantees defeat. Biochar soil amendment outperforms synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. Renewables are less costly than fossil across the board for energy. Net carbon negative geopolymers are better and less expensive than OPC for concrete. So not only are these opponents of action to solve climate change politicized and polemicized; they're also expensive. Try Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 & Roadmap.

[@charlesw852]

Ironically, this is truly chilling.

[@gruber1650]

And what if the courts rule against your narrative 😮

[@grindupBaker]

if the courts rule against the physical science then OBVIOUSLY the physical science is wrong. Mother Nature and the Universe doesn't dare ever disobey the courts, the only more frightening authority is The Missus, She Who Must Be Obeyed.

[@kevindruce8915]

If you could send out more details about teach the teacher then that would be good please. As I often have conversations with people on CC and it is useful to be as prepared as possible.

[@komousch]

Great! Love it! And as usual, there are lot of dezinfo „experts“ in the comments.

[@stevehewitt1151]

Utter garbage! Exactly what I've come to expect from the BBC.

[@danielrawlings8355]

0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.

[@paal8193]

Yeah, but only 200 y ago , it was 0.027% and climate was perfect at the time.

[@danielrawlings8355]

@@paal8193 Perfect? Whatabout the flood around biblical times? Almost every documented civilisation commences after a flood.

[@absmith6237]

@@danielrawlings8355 Do you have to be so logical especially at a time like this when the easily led are scared to death ?

[@paal8193]

@@danielrawlings8355 Yeah right, we are all result of inbreding from Noah & wife ...

[@danielrawlings8355]

@@absmith6237 Yes. I do. People must use & trust their God given senses. They'll never fail you.

[@robertplant2059]

I asked a coworker if it was possible the sun moved closer to the earth or the earth moved closer to the sun and I was told I was a moron. I ask why when I was young noon was considered the hottest part of the day and now it is 4 or 5 PM, what changed?

[@---nt5mb]

A lot has changed but not the distance between the sun and the earth. It is one of the easier measurements we humans can make today and if that had happened, it would have been noticed along time ago as we have a tonne of equipment and astronomers constantly measuring our and other planets position and distance, even our atomic clocks, which constantly measure the time it takes to orbit the sun ( changes to distance to the sun would cause changes to time it takes to orbit the sun. But I have to ask, if you are willing to consider that the sun or the earth has left its orbits so significantly to change our climate, then why do you have difficulty believing that too much of a certain gas in out atmosphere can trap heat? Also the nights and evening are significantly hotter as we are not losing the heat from our atmosphere so as the day warms up more heat is trapped, consider blowing hot air into a closed room all day, if the heat has nowhere to go, the temperature increases. So even after midday the sun continues to heat the earth and the earths atmosphere fails to lose heat as it would have done in the past, which is why nighttime temperatures are rapidly increasing in comparison to historical nighttime temperatures.

[@robertplant2059]

@@---nt5mb Considering we thought Pluto was our 9th planet until 2006, I am going to believe we are still learning.

[@scottekoontz]

@@robertplant2059 Earth is slightly further from the sun. But note that Earth is millions of miles further in Summer, and the Earth as a whole is warmer when millions of miles further away. In other words, not distance to sun at all. We are still learning if it is 2.35 inches or 2.36 inches. Is that what you mean by still learning?

[@robertplant2059]

@@scottekoontz No what I mean is as a society we cannot even determine the definition of a man and woman. bottom line we are positive of very little. I lean on questioning much as I googled this: Questioning scientific understanding is fundamentally important to scientific progress. All good scientists are skeptical about everything related to science, especially when it involves their own specialty area of science.Apr 12, 2022

[@scottekoontz]

@@robertplant2059 Must be the sun. Less sun means warming! Such great science.

[@Onequietvoice]

Perhaps if the BBC had not insisted on presenting the "two sides" to the climate change "debate" for many years it would have helped.

[@---nt5mb]

The printing press was invented around 1440 and the first slander laws were introduced circa 1500. Facebook was launched in 2004 and since then social media has gone from strength to strength, how long will it take for us to have disinformation laws, that allow us to penalise both the creation and spread of disinformation?

[@gruber1650]

Who decides what is disinformation?

[@silentwilly2983]

Who decides what is disinformation? For science to work open debate is required, the moment open debate is not allowed science changes into propaganda. Something that tends to happen anyway due to the (financial) incentives . We see it in virtually all scientific fields. Look at the replication crisis in many fields. Why would you expect it to be any different in climate science where many billions if not trillions of dollars are at stake in research grants, subsidies and business opportunities all depending on the existence of a climate crisis? The fact that people are shouted down for talking against human induced climate change instead of addressing the arguments is a good reason to be skeptic. I have not seen a good explanation for why temperature leads co2, I've not seen a good explanation why current co2 levels are a problem while if you look at historic co2 levels we are very close to historically low levels. Why does it matter we added 100 - 200 ppm co2 to the atmosphere to roughly 400 ppm while the long term chart shows a very long, very bumpy decline from several thousands of ppm to just a few hundred? The best explanation I've seen is the claim of the speed at which the change occurs, but I've not seen any substantiation of that claim. To my best knowledge there is no data to support that claim as we simply lack the granularity in the historic record. For some time I thought it was fine as worse case we did what was needed for the wrong reasons, but I no longer believe that to be the case. I now lean more towards we do, if you define it in a very narrow minded way, the right thing with the wrong priority, in the wrong way. The negatives of what we do may very well outweigh the positives.

[@---nt5mb]

@@gruber1650 who decides what is slander… the courts

[@silentwilly2983]

@@---nt5mb Many courts are political and judges are not exactly known for their scientific knowledge, in contrary many are complete nitwits when it comes to science. If you let the courts decide what claims are scientifically merited then science becomes pointless.

[@mve6182]

@@---nt5mb I would not trust the government to decide which information is considered disinformation! It seems to me like the fastest way to a dictatorship...

[@jarrettscherrer2189]

Sounds, fiishy.

[@rharoldkane4447]

4.2-kiloyear event...look it up. They are lying.

[@absmith6237]

CarboNostra cartels ! That’s what I was thinking too 😀👍

[@OldScientist]

"Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioural changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." IPCC

[@bakedbean37]

Air conditioning is for humans. Have you noticed we are not alone?

[@mike1117777]

Give up the lies

[@grindupBaker]

It takes right around 1.0 ppmv of H2O or CO2 "greenhouse" gas in Earth's air mixture to make the same LWR energy per second as the solar SWR energy that Earth absorbs per second.

[@mrunning10]

So the wank what? So what?

[@tonysherwood9619]

Tackling co-vaccination injury denial more like!

[@mrunning10]

HORSESHIT. Up the dosage of your government supplied and paid-for medications please!

[@drsyn9616]

💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

[@grindupBaker]

Good luck with that one!

[@lutherleathers6720]

Bah! Humbug!

[@quranfakeaasmanikitabhai4096]

BBC should also understand that Islam is no longer a slave of England. Islam is an emerging powerful caste of the world 🌎

[@kkmardigrce]

Islam is one of the many religions. Period.

[@TheBushMaster]

What has that got to do with this climate change video?

[@robertplant2059]

@@TheBushMaster Nothing like what Islam has given to the world that is positive.

[@MANADOSTREET]

​@@TheBushMasterMohammad is climate activist