Bret Weinstein - The Threat of Global Warming Is Way Overblown

[@jean-pascalheynemand3271]

No climate crisis. Only coercive marketing.

[@nikitaw1982]

And we aren’t preparing in the least. What percentage solar panels close to water level

[@airman122469]

I’m not convinced that any human society has ever had sustainability as a first thought. Why do you think humans moved around so often? Why did we conquer so many neighboring tribes and countries?

[@BryceGarling]

Humans learned through depletion that maintaining was key. In reality it was a second thought. Then modern humans destroyed ancient systems and again making maintaing a second thought. Humans learn and humans forget. A species where stupidity and smartness sway back and forth.

[@bradbiesecker162]

Ambition, pride, greed, etc

[@lordkelvin441]

Return to hunter-gatherer society then, you'd have all sustainability you want at the tradeoff of foregoing any agency. Agency, a mechanism of choosing an action that can be repeated finite number of times is antithesis of sustainability where predetermined, narrow, survival-oriented set of actions can be repeated theoretically infinite number of times. Do not _live_ , just _survive_ as long as your species is able to cope with evolutionary pressure.

[@markallinson8350]

It's not overblown. It's 100% BS.

[@copplemeister]

In your humble uneducated non-credited civilian opinion. But let’s leave it up to the experts shall we?

[@markallinson8350]

@@copplemeister The "experts" - you mean that class of "highly educated" folks who, for instance, confidently predicted that the recent election result was either a clear Democrat win or at least "too close to call"?

[@kenwoodburn7438]

The Climate Crisis is just an extension of the Covid Crisis. Tools to wage war on the masses while plundering the planet's wealth with fake solutions to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars.

[@kenwoodburn7438]

​@@copplemeister Too much CNN?

[@CBultmann]

@@copplemeister The once that predicted imminent doom for the last 90 years and had been shown wrong again and again, you speak of those experts?

[@robertbdavisii9801]

Glad Bret has come around on this

[@suzannemcvicker617]

Yes, I figured that out 30 years ago taking environmental science classes at UO.

[@mxvega1097]

Watch the walk-back on sea level rise over the next couple of years. The data just doesn't support the macro proposition. I'm involved in some practical work in the Pacific on water security - rainfall collection and management, water lens monitoring, and stand-by desalination capacity. No one - like no one - in the islands is even remotely concerned about sea level rise. They're concerned about drought, storms, fisheries, cost of inputs, education, primary health, ageing. Not sea level rise.

[@olsim1730]

I've lived my whole 43 years in the south pacific right by the ocean. I can tell you the sea level has not risen an inch in that time

[@briankenison7995]

​@@olsim1730 You know you're wrong right? This is well documented.

[@pshehan1]

I don't know which part of the Pacific you are talking about, but the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental organisation that aims to enhance cooperation among countries and territories of Oceania, met in Tonga last August and frequently expresses concern at the consequences of global warming. Tide gauge measurements going back to 1900 and and satellite data from 1993 show accelerating sea level rise.

[@yasi4877]

@@pshehan1 During WW2 a common refrain among servicemen located on those islands "..man the lifeboats boys, the island is sinking again".

[@shaunluckham1418]

@@pshehan1you can’t tack on different measuring methodologies to one another. Sticking with tidal gauges there has been no acceleration. All stats can be “fiddled” to support a narrative

[@johnpritchard8946]

The only way to see through the garbage is to sit down with a blank piece of paper, clear your mind of any pre-conceived ideas and make the best case you can for and against global warming being real and caused by human activity. I did this and facing my own ignorance was both humbling and ultimately rewarding. I'd recommend this process to anyone.

[@thesmallnotesduo]

I did - no climate crisis. Tyranny? Oh yes, tyranny is the crisis.

[@johnpritchard8946]

@thesmallnotesduo You were obviously asking yourself a different question than I was. I wasn't trying to establish whether there was a crisis only whether the earth had warmed and if so what was the cause or causes. Tyranny, as I understand the word, refers to cruel, oppressive regemes. Here I think of Mao's China, Uganda under Idi Amin etc. I was looking at peer reviewed papers, ice core, satellite data, emission/absorption spectra and things like that so political terminology wasn't of any use to me.

[@thesmallnotesduo]

@@johnpritchard8946 These things are now related my friend. Of course the earth is cooling. Or warming. It is such a complex nexus of systems that claiming 'we' understand the cause would be naive at best and tyrannical at worst. The latter is what should concern all of us because under the pretext of 'climate crisis' tyrants are having a detrimental effect on millions of people that will only get worse. By all means look for causes - it's what we do - but never lose sight of what powerful people will do with what they claim those causes are.

[@pshehan1]

The best way to understand anthropogenic climate change is to see what appears in the peer reviewed scientific literature. ACC is established beyond a reasonable scientific doubt.

[@thesmallnotesduo]

@@pshehan1 Ah - 'the science'. I worked i n peer review for 40 years. It is now.....compromised.

[@mrfairsthename7470]

Pollution and chemicals are what My gut instinct tells me is the worst bit .

[@BryceGarling]

It's my belief we should restore the lost forests as well as restore the lost carbon. Bring that stored carbon back up and make the earth green again.

[@wolfgangthiele2785]

the world IS green.

[@shaunluckham1418]

@@wolfgangthiele2785the world is naturally responding to the extra co2 and greening. This can be seen from satellites. No need to do anything apart from normal conservation

[@sled9263]

Under 7700 views after a full day. This is obviously being suppressed by the KZbin algorithm.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

CO2 and water vapor overlap to a great degree in terms of reflecting light frequencies for the greenhouse affects. So. It seems that the increased C02 will have less of an affect due to the water vapor affect.

[@irocksup123]

How come CO2 is said to trap heat inside but doesn’t block it from coming in?

[@lugnutlarry1764]

If they harvest all the blue fin, you can never again get blue fin.

[@TXDude]

Premise: Pedestrians have the right of way when crossing a street. That's the LAW as set by people who didn't want to spend forever detailing each possible situation in which the law should be applied. Their thought was to leave it to the courts to figure out exceptions as they occurred. Over time, the populace comes to think this law is inviolate and so do the modern judges. Tragedy (and one I actually witnessed): It's winter. The roads in downtown Dallas are iced. A pedestrian wants to cross the street at a corner and waits for the green light. The road he's crossing is one-way, and traffic approaching on his left on a slight downhill slope . ON ICEY ROADS. My friend steps off to cross and I hollered at him to stop, cars were coming downhill on ice. He told me, "It's OK, I have the right of way." My friend died right there because he confused the law of humans with the laws of physics. Dickens was correct, the law is an ass. Apply that to the argument, "We own the top of the mountain, we can tear it off." Or, "No one owns the ocean, so we can do what we want." The problem boils down to: As technology advances and enables bad behavior, the laws are not keeping up with that same technology. The law either protects bad behavior, or isn't adequate to cover unforeseen technology when it was enacted 100 years ago.

[@gsmscrazycanuck9814]

Over 8 years and I am still waiting for someone to debate me on climate change solutions that will save lives and prove the AGW narrative is a scam.

[@foingzap]

In Canada, we have a punishing carbon tax. Our govt said, the answer to fixing the worlds problem is a carbon tax. A carbon tax and planting 2 bollion trees. Canada has 318 billion trees. We produce 1.5 % of the worlds total carbon output. We are carbon neutral. As for these 2 billion trees, in 5 years, 516 million trees have been planted. Can someone please explain real science to our govt?

[@marc7769]

Arrhenius overestimated the effect of co2 by a factor of 5. So I don’t think it is appropriate to say it is secure. Nevertheless I am happy to learn that Bret has some sense on how overblown this whole carbone theory has gotten. The best resource I can think of to support this I is William Happer.

[@pshehan1]

In 1896, Arrhenius put the amount of temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration at 4-6 C. Happer gave a figure of 0.7 C. In 1991 the first IPCC report looking at all the literature gave a range from 1.5 to 4.5 C with the most likely value being 3 C. Data shows the value to be 3 C.

[@markhutton6055]

He also didn't understand about the saturation of CO2's ability to absorb Infrared. Or about the complex interactions of system outside of the calculation.

[@markhutton6055]

​@@pshehan1double CO2 you get a 0.7 C rise, double it again you get 0.35 C. Note: these numbers are illustrative only.

[@pshehan1]

@@markhutton6055 That's what Happer said would happen but the data says otherwise. based on the temperature and CO2 rise since the beginning of satellite temperature measurements: RSS satellite temperature trend from 1979 to February 2024 Trend: 0.210 °C/decade So the temperature change for the 4.5 decades is 0.95 C Mauna Loa CO2 concentration rise 338 to 422 ppm. So according to the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, for the period in question 0.95 = k ln(422/338) Solving the equation gives the proportionality constant, k= 4.26 So the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (ECS) is is 4.26 x ln2 = 4.26 x 0.693 = 3.0 C There will be a 3 C rise from pre industrial temperatures when/if CO2 concentration rises from pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm. There would be another 3 C rise if CO2 concentration was allowed to reach 1120 ppm. It is the logarithmic nature of the relationship, with a constant rise with each doubling of concentration which means that 'saturation ' would eventually occur, with further concentration rise having very little effect on temperature, but we are a long way from saturation.

[@shaunluckham1418]

@@pshehan1if you exclude the multitude of other variables. Which you cannot the Earth is not a laboratory

[@skyw4278]

Earth's magnetosphere IS weakening. Down by 20 percent. This allows in more solar energy which affects our weather system.

[@Orvulum]

Overshoot is the biggest problem... and the human shortcomings that have lead to it.

[@koalanectar9382]

Ah good, youtube has provided a helpful "context bubble" from the UN! The UN, of course, being the home of the world's best climate scientists!

[@mikehunt.1609]

I always find it funny when talking to climate catastrophists and point out that of course the Planet is getting warmer, but its been getting warmer for the last 12,000 years, and at some point its going to get colder as part of the Malancovich Cycles, which happens every 40,000 years and has been happening for the last 30 million years. The look on their faces of pure bewilderment is a clear sign that they have just realised how ill informed they are.

[@matthewsalkeld5326]

Brett is the sanest person I've heard.

[@ronwest7930]

Its all about controlling people and new taxes. co2 is good, A warm planet where food grows is good. A cold dead planet with little co2 is bad. Greed is the problem with large fishing companies. Smaller boats fishing is okay in general. Relatives in Asia tell me they have to travel much further out on the ocean to find fish compared to years ago.

[@johnvoelker4345]

both global warming and higher levels of CO₂ would benefit the biosphere the Earth is too cold and CO₂ is a nutrient

[@matthewsalkeld5326]

Earth is not a closed chemical system. Far from it!

[@thesmallnotesduo]

3:00 - you can turn fish into money. Hmm. I wonder if you could turn jabs into money. Who shall we ask?

[@theme.sum72]

Uhm. I saw bleached Reefs in the Maldives, 3 years ago.

[@johndoggett808]

Bleaching is a natural cycle. Until recent years reefes were very dangerous places to study and so long term data is poor. I hear that the Maldives have the same coral species as the Great barrier reef, but the water is 3 degrees warmer. So why isn't the Maldives coral dead when Australia is bleaching?

[@guinea_horn]

What a shockingly awful interviewer

[@richardpowell1389]

Lol. This hack is literally just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks now.

[@Ranti431]

It’s like somebody who starts smoking at the age of 16. At that ages is does not affect him at all, when he is 30 it does and the way it affects grows exponentially. We are the smoker at the age of 30. Maybe Brett has no kids and so does not care. Johan Cruyf stopped smoking at the age of 43 and died at the age of 67 due to long cancer because of the smoking. That is what you get with them intelectuales. It makes all sense in their mind but they don’t know that the content of their consciousness is not reality. In the end they only make problems bigger because there is always Al way a lot of things they ignore when they make their conclusions.

[@RichRich1955]

Was it 800 billion in climate change damage this year?

[@manoo422]

Probably...and whos pockets will all that money eventually end up in...??

[@christiansmith-of7dt]

I used to love going to places i had never been before

[@RealtyWebDesigners]

How will we survive it the earth temperature rises 1/2 a degree in the next hundred years! It's all over.. Let's riot in the streets! Oh no!

[@allister8053]

mhh, over fishing? mean the catches get smaller and the fish are less mature... therefore smaller. 😇

[@freesk8]

Privatize the ocean. Sell fishing rights to each square mile. Funds should go to private resource management agencies that would have an incentive to maintain the fishing resource because they get to charge the fees.

[@jochenehmen6108]

Right^^ (not) ... you employ the mystery of mysteries: Who is allowed by whom to come and say: this area is mine now - pay me when you want to do something with it or in it ? plus: you seem to have no idea how vast the oceans are One part of your idea working would mean that someone could enforce any privately set rule ... good luck with that ;)

[@michaelmasserang8922]

That would be impossible to regulate and enforce. The Oceans are several miles deep in places. And only 2% of the ocean bottom has been explored. Who knows what kind of damage has been done at those depths. Or what mysteries reside down there. I have always suspected that UFO's are originating from the bottom of the ocean. A perfect place to hide if you do not want to be found.

[@freesk8]

@@jochenehmen6108 People homesteaded land in the American West. That seems to have worked.

[@jochenehmen6108]

@@freesk8 Can you actually go there, decide to build a house, put up some fences and call it yours? I'd have bet that there is not even a square inch of land without an "owner". Who is it who is promoting you to the rank of the owner ... and where does he derive this power from?

[@freesk8]

@@jochenehmen6108 Anyone is free to claim unclaimed land. If you homestead it, build a fence around it, or just register a claim publicly, and no one else owned it, then it is yours. I say the oceans could be dealt with this way. Instead of UN claims to own the oceans, individual fishermen and fishing corps should claim the ocean in parcels. GPS will tell us where the boundaries are. Satelite technology can be used to enforce it. Private associations can accept fees to manage it.

[@dootdoot1867]

Trying to talk about global warming as an existential crisis while two nuclear behemoths throw spears at each other ftom afar is wild af.

[@7071SydcHome]

Exactly !!

[@AnomalousSilence]

Can anybody point me to his claim of coral bleaching being mostly fictional? Not having any luck finding anything on that.

[@defeqel6537]

a) bleaching isn't coral death, it is corals changing the algae they are in symbiosis with, to better suit the new conditions, b) The Great Barrier Reef has seen record area in the last few years, and its improvements began when more attention was put into what was spilling into waters from farms and factories (edit: most coral damage is done by fishing nets being dragged against the bottom of the ocean)

[@JMan-24]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXvRhaiFiMljhJosi=xlTcYyEapbR0AEre

[@JMan-24]

Lol. I posted a link and it looks like it was blocked. ??? Look up Reef Rebels. Former Australian professor driven out of the university for publicly stating that the GBR is ok. He has tons of content.

[@sonnyeastham]

Sane Science 😊

[@sympaticosympatico]

Does anyone really believe that he is qualified to make such pronouncements?

[@billscott2457]

manufacture consent

[@tomo_xD]

Bret has no idea what he's talking about

[@john1boggity56]

Correct

[@reidcrosby6241]

In what regard? Please elaborate if you have an example.

[@robertallan6373]

Because he talks the truth ?.

[@Kevin_Knox]

Because he disagrees with your cu1t?

[@olddude3266]

Man Bun! Ha Ha.

[@edru8567]

Denialism works until reality visits. The poles are melting, fact. The seas are warming at a worrying rate. Sea levels are rising. All due to mans activity. Extreme weather events are becoming significantly more frequent as average temperatures increase. Only a liar could deny these facts

[@shaunluckham1418]

Absolute nonsense, every single sentence is false, you need to read some actual science not the newspaper’s version for dummies.

[@genfiveten595]

Imagine how hard it is for Brett to talk to someone when he can hear his own voice echoing in the guys empty skull

[@hafunland894]

Imagine Brett's word echoing inside his own vain stupid mind bouncing off his skull walls with graffiti written all over them, freedumb, freedumb, freedumb...

[@snowflakeca2079]

JFC… What an idiot… And how “BRAVE” to put the entire biosphere at risk on “HIS” behalf…

[@captain_malaria]

Excellent name for you to have.

[@Cheesy-t1h]

Ah the inevitable destination of the internet grifter. Everything I've read says the exact opposite, that predictions are far too conservative.

[@captain_malaria]

How many more decades until I can call alarmists incorrect? Is it convenient that long-term doom and gloom is always sexy, going back thousands of years even?

[@defeqel6537]

IPCC itself says nothing bad has happened yet (AR6, table 12.12), and they've been predicting doom for at least 30 years

[@Cheesy-t1h]

@defeqel6537 Yeah just droughts, mass forest fires, floods etc. You people have a screw loose.

[@defeqel6537]

@@Cheesy-t1h "you people", you mean the IPCC? I put forth my references. You are free to disagree with them, or my interpretation of them, but at least attribute claims correctly.

[@Cheesy-t1h]

@@defeqel6537 I don't debate idiots anymore, I just laugh at them

[@copplemeister]

Classic bunch of climate denial list. Opening sentence he denies global warming exists and then for the rest of the talk he goes on about the population of fish in the ocean? What the F has that got to do with global warming?😂

[@stowcreek1999]

Libertarianism is a naive thought-experiement.... That you REALLY would not want in practice.

[@bryanswift6803]

Don't be a carbon cycle denier.

[@gregoryporch8395]

They have some good ideas, usually the ones that are consistent with the Bill of Rights, but for the most part "libertarian" is the only one-word oxymoron in the English language.

[@stowcreek1999]

@@bryanswift6803 Which is exactly what the climate deniers are… Not sure if you understand it by the nature of your statement

[@iancormie9916]

​@stowcreek1999 they are not deniers, they are, rightly. Skeptics who refuse to believe the BS being shoveled by politicians and opportunistic activists.

[@spacescatatford]

Since the year 2000, global drought has increased by 29%.

[@corruptqc8334]

Look how much the magnetic poles have shifted since the year 2000

[@defeqel6537]

and yet, IPCC doesn't claim any drought increases yet (AR6, table 12.12)

[@iancormie9916]

Where did that number come from? The world is 15% greener than it was in 2000.

[@spacescatatford]

@@iancormie9916 Google of course. Ask. And yes, humans have been planting trees greening the planet at the same time.

[@pshehan1]

Nobody says that CO2 toxicity is a problem. The concern with anthropogenic global warming is that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causes warming of the surface and lower atmosphere. Prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration was 280 ppm. It is now 425 ppm and increasing by 2.5 ppm per year. And feedback mechanisms are understood. The basic physics says that doubling the CO2 concentration in a laboratory experiment raised temperature by 1.1 C. Theoretical understanding of feedback mechanisms, principally the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more H2O, itself a greenhouse gas, predicted an actual rise of 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration. Data has confirmed that prediction. Overfishing is certainly a problem, but it has little to do with global warming. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration means increasing dissolution of CO2 in the ocean, where it is converted to carbonic acid lowering the pH which affects the shells and skeletons of marine creatures at the bottom of the food chain. Coral reef bleaching is not fictional. Reefs may recover from a bleaching event, but repeated and frequent events which are happening with increased ocean temperature will permanently kill reefs.

[@iancormie9916]

Earth is not a laboratory. Heat is transported from the tropics ultimately to the pols. Globally, from some point above the troposphere energy is radiated out to space at some fraction of the Stephen Boltzman constant (T to the 4th power)

[@pshehan1]

@@iancormie9916 And how does that negate any of the points I made?

[@JMan-24]

It is about the scale of the feedback having never been accurately modeled. Even using models to look back when the data is known it hasn’t been done accurately, especially not over extended timeframes. The old data has to be “corrected” to make it fit the models. So to say that the feedback is understood is inaccurate. Then we can get to the actual data itself, ie how things like T and sea level are measured, selective data reporting, accuracy of of older data, ice cores, tree rings, on and on. The issue is that “the science” has been corrupted by political and financial interests to the point where it’s impossible to get objective reporting and have open discussions.

[@pshehan1]

@@JMan-24 Feedback mechanisms are difficult to model, which is why the range of values of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS in the first IPCC report in 1991 was from 1.5 to 4.5 C with the most likely value being 3 C. Data has shown that value to be correct. RSS satellite temperature trend from 1979 to February 2024 Trend: 0.210 °C/decade So the temperature change for the 4.5 decades is 0.95 C Mauna Loa CO2 concentration rise 338 to 422 ppm. So according to the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration, for the period in question 0.95 = k ln(422/338) Solving the equation gives the proportionality constant, k= 4.26 So the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (ECS) is is 4.26 x ln2 = 4.26 x 0.693 = 3.0 C Data is not corrected to make it fit the models. Adjustments are made to historical data when using the data to monitor temperature change to take into account changes at particular sites due to factors such as urban heat island effect, opening of irrigation schemes, movement of sites etc. The largest change to global data was due to changing the measurement method of sea surface which covers 71% of the earth's surface. Prior to about 1940, a bucket was dropped over the side, hauled up on deck, a thermometer stuck in and the temperature recorded when it reached equilibrium. During this time evaporation cooled the bucket and the water so the recorded temperature was lower than the actual temperature. After 1940 the temperature is recorded from the intake pipe in the interior of the ship which is warmed by the engines. So the recorded temperature is higher than the actual temperature. So the adjustment for this LOWERS the change in global temperature. Furthermore, satellite temperature data matches the surface data. Temperatures are measured by surface data stations or satellites. The various sources are in agreement. Sea level is measured from tide gauge data, and from 1993 satellite measurements. What is your evidence for selective data reporting? As for the corruption of science by political and financial interests: In the 1970s Exxon scientists sent reports to management which came to the same conclusions about anthropogenic global warming as other scientists. Management stamped the reports confidential, filed them away for decades and disbanded the research group. Governments in the thrall of the fossil fuel lobby reacted in similar ways. Two weeks after G W Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. The Bush Whitehouse had someone who rewrote reports. Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming. In Australia, the premier research body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) had funding for its Atmospheric Physics division cut when it produced unwelcome reports. So much for 'Follow the money' and Scientists tell their employers what they want to hear' nonsense. The blogosphere is overflowing with open discussions on these matters. This video is just one example.

[@brothermaynard3759]

CO2 concentrations of 180ppm can have serious deleterious effects on the planet. And based upon your pre Industrial Revolution figure of 280ppm, that would seem to be perilously low. So, what then is the ideal ppm concentration of CO2? And whatever figure you state, just how was that proven to be the correct ppm level?