Climate Change: We Were Warned!

[@ClimateAdam]

This episode features 3 (count 'em!) incredible climate communicators voicing the warnings. They are: Sarah Eager (Guilty Environmentalist) | instagram.com/the_guilty_environmentalist/ Simon Clark | kzbin.info Rollie Williams (Climate Town) | kzbin.info Plus you also heard from: Chandler Shortlidge | twitter.com/ChandlerShort Nick Davies & K.M.L.

[@timonnieveler1486]

I highly recommend reading Murray Bookchin. He wasn't a climate scientist but he was aware of climate change in the 1970 and was making the link between ecological destruction and capitalism. I think his solutions are even more relevant today than back than. Also he came up with the the incredible phrase: "we must do the impossible or else we must face the unthinkable."

[@bazoo513]

What is ironic is that clever people are making renewable and other sustainable energy sources, and new low-carbon technologies (e.g. in steel and cement production) into lucrative businesses.

[@danielsan901998]

The last supreme court ruling show that we must pressure the government instead of trusting the political process.

[@RobertMJohnson]

you are lost, rodriquez

[@garyandersen1186]

the first scientific paper, that I have found is a 1896 paper by Svante Arrhinius (1903 Nobel prize in chemistry)

[@ClimateAdam]

there's a lovely timeline of a lot of the key scientific moments in the evolution of climate science here: scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/history-climate-science-research

[@Hackney_Boy-DoesntReadReplies]

People need it spelled out to them, I remember hearing about global warming when I was a kid in the 80s and decided right there and then to never drive a car. This is the least people should do but they put convenience and greed above the lives of their own children.

[@fromnorway643]

I first heard about the greenhouse effect and global warming in 1981 when the original Cosmos series with Carl Sagan aired on the public tv channel in Norway. It was covered quite extensively in episode 4, “Heaven and Hell”.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I think it’s important to know how long we’ve known about this so that we’re aware of how much our current economic system runs counter to improving our living situation. It’s been frustrating as all get out to have climate change taught as a very real thing which is happening when I was in school only to grow into an adult and regularly hear people try to deny that it’s real. We can definitely take some great actions right away, but they all will have a better chance of succeeding if we move away from an economy that subsidizes fossil fuels.

[@stephenmason5827]

Jim Hansen recently said it’s now scientifically impossible for us to stay below 1.5c rise. We are so screwed, no way we are going to stay below 2 c if we are all honest about it. Thanks for the vids

[@ClimateAdam]

I've heard scientists argue for and against this perspective (as I've said at the end of this vid: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5DMfYFuj6tnY5Y ) on 1.5 degrees. but my perspective is that we know for sure that impacts keep getting worse the hotter things get - even after we overshoot our limits. and so *either way* our goal (as people, as societies, as a planet) should be the same - cut emissions to net zero as quick as we possible can.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@ClimateAdam - As long as some mainstream climate scientists claim that we can still achieve the 1.5 °C threshold there will be people who will gravitate to dismissing the arguments of those who are less hopeful.

[@chris4973]

Check out Peter Carter’s latest (6/27/22) video on this. >1.5C is baked in. He uses solar forcing and graphs from well respected sources. He was a reviewer on IPCC reports and knows his stuff!

[@chris4973]

Sir David King recently put us at 1.35C…

[@fromnorway643]

I also believe that it’s too late for 1.5°C since we are already at 1.2°C according to HadCRUT5 and NASA and 1.3°C according to Berkeley Earth. Limiting the warming to 2°C will also be very challenging, but it should at least be more realistic than 1.5°C if we don’t waste more time. If we also fail to meet that target, we should keep in mind that 2.5°C if still better than 3°C and much better than 4°C or 5°C.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Emissions aren't what directly affects global climate. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what does that. Saying that things will be fine if we get to net zero is just wrong. We've already put too much CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to take some back out, or intervene in some other way to offset the effects, or both. (We've also put a lot of methane into the atmosphere, but that will come out on its own.) The evidence didn't become clear until the 1980s. Of course there were warnings before that, but they were speculative. If we had gone all-in on developing geoengineering starting in the 1980s, we would have had a clear price to put on carbon emissions: the cost of putting CO2 into the air is the cost of taking it back out. The result would have been that we would have begun to reduce overall CO2 emissions (not just slow the growth) probably by the late 90s, or at least by the twenty-teens. Instead, they've still been increasing.

[@mwhearn1]

Exactly. 350ppm is considered the safe upper limit of atmospheric co2. We passed that back in 1980. We have 40 years of emissions to undo.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

As far back as the 1960's, there was a concern that we were going to run out of petroleum. It was also believed by many at the time that most of our energy needs would be derived from nuclear energy by the beginning of the 21st century.

[@MrPagan777]

I was 15, in 1981, when a documentary called WARMING WARNING was shown on TV. Up to that point all I wanted from life was to have kids, a family of my own, and to travel the world to see some of the places I had on the list I'd been making for 10 years. So, I gave all that up. I'm 56 now: no kids; never been anywhere; don't drive; don't fly; don't heat my house; minimal meat diet since 1995; use minimal water; don't buy anything unless it is an absolute necessity. But everyone else carried on using more and more energy. Over the years I've been repeatedly attacked for my lifestyle, and have attempted to unalive myself 11 times since 1999. I said a sad goodbye to all that I loved in 2016: whales, tigers, leopards, bears, birds, insects - nature in general. Now I watch them all dying...

[@OurEden]

Great video Adam, thank you. It still blows my mind how long we've known about the greenhouse effect, and how early those in power were warned about the effects. It is depressing how those with a self interest in suffocating public perception have succeeded for so long, but it gives even more motivation and reason to be making videos like these, hopefully a rapid acceleration of public opinion will continue to occur!

[@richardallan2767]

This is the thing that gets me. I was born mid 70s and we absolutely knew, on a wide societal level we were doing this to ourselves before that. a large part of civilisation is a required level of cognitive dissonance and forgetting, to get up everyday and help... well... kill everything. Damn it's mental to think of it like that.

[@pablouribe1522]

I mean, even if you knew nothing about CS, something in your mind will tell you the way we started consuming so much more than in previous centuries with the same world was not going to last for long.

[@RobertMJohnson]

@@pablouribe1522 it's still going, Uribe. what the f are you talking about "was not going to last for long." you can't even make that comment. you have no data to tell us how long it will have lasted.

[@RobertMJohnson]

and yet, the world has become more prosperous since the 1970s, Allan. who are you trying to kid? poverty rate? down. life expectancy? UP. population: billions MORE people. we will be burning fossil fuels for the next 100 years. climate change is going to result in almost nothing for the rest of the century predators are propagating all over North America and are expanding their territories. seriously, what are you peddling besides lies and bs?

[@richardallan2767]

@@RobertMJohnson Not peddling anything. Just pointing out Science and the Experience we have right now of hotter temperatures and more crises every year. Heck every month. Could well be 40C in Uk this week, and the first time a risk of life warning is given regarding heat by the met office. Yes we have advanced and that's great, but not so much if we have done this by literally borrowing, not only the resources of the future, but quite likely the ability to even have a future. Exponential expansions never go well. Billions more people *is* the problem. Not being Malthusian. Just stating that infinite expansion doesn't go well in enclosed, finite systems. I'd rather go for a long term quality, than a short term quantity approach to existence.

[@richardallan2767]

@@RobertMJohnson To synopsize, your anger and certainty at how well this is going relies on ignoring the increasing instability, massive poverty gap so we have slave labour to keep profit margins, and, you know, the whole planet dying bit. Sure, if you ignore the science, and the fires, and the floods and the migration and heatstroke deaths, it looks great. Personally, i think ignorance is not a long term strategy.

[@soniachabane6447]

Have you researched the history of warnings about climate change from individuals that are not from the Global North? And from 'less conventional' science? (indigenous?)

[@michaelbyrd7883]

Transportation and energy are the most crucial parts of dropping emissions. Although going wind and solar has become much cheaper, EV's have not. The auto industry is so corrupt and nasty, the goal can't be reached until this is done and the US is looking to double down on creating emissions not cutting them down.

[@LeanAndMean44]

Are you referring to carbon bombs about the US?

[@michaelbyrd7883]

@@LeanAndMean44 Yep!

[@YingYang-t4z]

The world needs this channel to grow

[@ClimateAdam]

aw thank you Nicolás!

[@humanlovesolidarity4718]

we are 1.5ºC above normal if baseline starting point of 1750, authorities start in 1850 as beginning of industrial revolution (1.1ºC above)

[@ClimateAdam]

The IPCC and (presumably because they don't specify it) the Paris Agreement use 1850-1900 as the 'pre-industrial' baseline, which I'm using here when I refer to 1.5 degrees. This isn't truly 'pre-industrial' but so long as everyone's talking about the same thing, policy can align with the research. Note the 1.5 degree report's justification for this is: "This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report." - www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1

[@sculptureforasmallplanet]

Thanks Adam! So quick humans are to adapt to unnecessary convenience. So slow to adapt to necessary inconvenience. Hopefully we will before it’s to late!

[@derelictor]

Hi Adam, not sure if you've upload it before, but what about a video of the best books and articles to better understand climate change for "normies" like us? Thanks for your efforts!

[@patrick247two]

Thank you.

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

Great video, behavioural change is difficult even when the anticipated benefits are great.

[@vincentkosik403]

I've been alive a long time...remember Dr James Hansen in Washington DC before Congress 1989...before that did a stint with GreenPeace. Talk that around 1985. So, it was in my face then...know Nixon was alerted to it when he was in the Whitehouse...1972...they mentioned it and when to another subject.

[@oleonard7319]

you missed Carl Sagan's testimony to congress in 1985

[@ClimateAdam]

there were looooads of warnings over the years that I missed! but Carl Sagan's testimony (like so much of what he did) is exceptional.

[@oleonard7319]

@@ClimateAdam I see no way. The world is going to do anything, based on human behavior. We can't switch to something else fast enough and people aren't willing to suffer any level of inconvenience.

[@fromnorway643]

The first time I heard about the greenhouse effect and the danger of future warming due to CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel was 41 years ago, when episode 4 of the original Cosmos series with Carl Sagan aired on Norwegian tv in 1981.

[@MattiasWikstrom]

I find that during the 90s lots of people who were supposedly experts on environmental issues failed to give attention to climate change as an existential threat. The problem got mentioned as one environmental problem out of many and environmentalists tended to give more attention to other things, like the ozone layer, acidification, the need to protect endangered species, etc. This changed in the 2000s, and it has become increasingly easy to find good information on climate change. Even so, it remains hard for the average person to understand what actions they ought to take in order to have a meaningful impact on climate change (Will it make a practical difference to travel less, or should you follow the example of Bill Gates who uses private jets and helicopters? Is overpopulation the problem or should you listen to Greta Thunberg who disagrees with that view? Is government spending or a carbon tax what is needed? Or is it technological inventions that have a chance of making a real difference? Or will geoengineering be used to combat global warming so that the real problems lie not in global warming itself but in other things?)

[@AnkurShah]

Great and timely video Adam! Liked and shared 😊

[@peterdollins3610]

Went to Sifnos in 1974. The local Greek Island people reported there had been less rainfall so lower streams for 50 years that means from 1924. In 1975 all the weather patterns seen through Greek Literature for over 3,000 years broke down. Tropical rain storms, less seasonal 'soft' rain seasons changing then breaking into a series of mini seasons increasingly wayward until 1984 when I left Greece. The local peoole who watch weather and climate like hawks complained of all these changes hurting them every day of the years. Now we sea the fires that did not occur in the 10 years I lived in Greece. Every year the local farmers burnt off stubble or particular parts but those fires never went out of control. Now it must be so much drier and hot as pottey kiln bricks recently fired. .

[@Dr.Gehrig]

Good video. I look forward to hearing you speak on Britain's recent heatwaves and fires.

[@ReesCatOphuls]

10:05 ideal target 1.5C 10:20 "overall zero emissions by 2050" 11:00 end video with hope. Video is from June 2022, and by June 2024 we have an 18-month average over 1.5C Telling your viewers that a 2050 target is relevant is not ageing well.

[@user-vi6ro8bd4l]

Can someone explain Aerosol Masking and if cutting emissions could actually accelerate our demise?

[@ClimateAdam]

I touch on it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnzSl2qEhsqAh8U But short answer is that aerosols absolutely do have an overall cooling effect, but climate scientists do already explicitly take it into account when estimating limits (be that emissions limits or time limits).

[@emi2505]

Great video! Thanks for putting that together 💚

[@thesilentone4024]

Thirsty cement in citys even if its just parking lots thats 20 to 30% of the total space now preventing flooding and increase groundwater. Add trees native to the state and or mix it with other trees that grow in similar situations. Tall trees not under power lines small fruit trees under those. Less tall roofs with black or any dark colors. Tall buildings use solar on the walls for they have made them to look like one if need be so use them to reduce energy demand. Hiways and freways need to have trees lining the sides to help reduce wind flooding and heat and make people pay attention more so it reduces car crashes and slowes them so it technically improves mpg as well. Fun fact car mpg over 65 to 70 mph you start to lose mpg like me 65 mph I get 22 mpg 80 mph I get 17 mpg.

[@drawyrral]

It's too too late my friend.

[@dilatedindisbelief]

The point about a B-movie was perfect. We have The Tingler, The Horrible Sexy Vampire, and The Incredible Melting Man. But not The Invisible Pollutant. SAD.

[@BaerbelW]

Thanks for the video, Adam! We have a kind of companion article on Skeptical Science outlinining the fascinating history of climate science. I'll try to share the link in a reply to this comment but - at a guess - it'll be "eaten" by KZbin as usually happens.

[@LeanAndMean44]

You can cite the article’s title. That’s what I use to do, and it doesn’t get „eaten“.

[@RobertMJohnson]

fascinating history of PhD's lying their asses off to the world

[@pablouribe1522]

Excellent video. Lots of graphics, colaboration with more creators. Top notch, and factual. Keep doing this great job!

[@ClimateAdam]

well thanks, Pablo!

[@martinarnsten4203]

Thank you Adam! I learned about a warning from the US president Jimmy Carter in 1980 with the Global 2000 report. I guess at least in that case the warnings from science reached the political level but was put away by from the political level? In Sweden and in the US from like 2015 there are a lot of similar things with progress. Like a progress institute, a progress podcast, progress books, progress fact databases etc. So I tried to track back what the possible origin from these was and many of them are runned by or at least supported by think tanks. And tracking further back what the possible origin for this progress mania at these think tanks it seems to have come from these thinks tanks produced counter images and measures to damning environmental reports. That’s when I learned about the report issued by Carter in 1980. One of many reports they took counter measures and wrote counter images against.

[@AntonWongVideo]

a wild Simon Clark appears!

[@ClimateAdam]

it's super effective!

[@MegaPEN1S]

Thanks for your effort to make these very educational and easy to understand videos. Appreciate the work. Keep it up!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks Dr!

[@lyndonbarsten393]

Great. This video proves to any rational person that we are in a REAL crisis.

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks for watching, Lyndon!

[@mariacostello1976]

There is a fantastic movement now started in California. Letting down the tyres of petrol or diesel guzzling and totally unnecessary SUV's that now plague our city streets. It does not cause any permanent damage which is what we must all avoid, just inconvenience and a message to move to EV's as quickly as they possibly can.

[@RobertMJohnson]

california is one of the LARGEST consumers of oil and gas and has the highest number of gas guzzling automobiles of any state in the US

[@fromnorway643]

@@RobertMJohnson That's because of their large population. The per capita emissions in California is among the lowest in the US.

[@RobertMJohnson]

​ no, you uninformed foreigner. it's because of their WEALTH and LIFESTYLE. if you are driving high-end SUVs and sports cars, you are POLLUTING MORE PER MILE relative to other states' with a lower number of gas guzzlers per capita. these people's polluting is offset per capita b/c California isn't a huge manufacturing state any longer and has a high population of EVs. but if you were to analyze states by cars with ICEs, California is one of the biggest polluters in the nation bc of that wealth and because there are so many SUVs, trucks, sports cars.

[@fromnorway643]

@@RobertMJohnson Search for _Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions per capita in the United States in 2019, by state._ Excerpt from the result (in metric tonnes per person per year): Wyoming: 101.9 North Dakota: 74.8 West Virginia: 47.6 Alaska: 46.7 Louisiana: 41.8 : *US average 15.7* : Maryland 9.4 Massachusetts 9.2 *California 9.1* New York 8.7 DC 4.0 Note that this is emissions per person, not the total emissions per state. Also note that even the Californian emissions given here are twice as high as the global average and roughly 25 % higher than China’s.

[@LONDONIA2072]

Wonderfully clear video which would surely make the most stubborn donkeys of denial go ‘uh? ‘. That heat chart showing the mid 80s as a hot point and then the reality of the years until now was incredible, and alarming !! We’ll done. Do you work with schools at all ? Seems to me that kids need to be really informed at the earliest age - without scaring them utterly…difficult.

[@ClimateAdam]

So glad you liked the video! I have done a little education stuff with schools but it's something I'd definitely love to do more of.

[@LONDONIA2072]

@@ClimateAdam It's people like you - young people! with true knowledge than can make a difference, to get kids engaged with their present and future lives. It makes me furious that idiot, privileged **%$@ in so called governments who have absolutely no scientific understanding of the planet get to make decisions about education and . . . everything else.

[@yash4anand]

Adam, understand that warning for climate change ringed 120 years ago, But, it's not time to discuss when it alarmed, it's important when we wake up. when such kind of issue go beyond school syllabus. We all understand the root cause but we are not ready to be in action. Climate change issue can only be resolved if we change,no government or corporate body would help. Are you ready?

[@psikeyhackr6914]

After the Warming by James Burke 1989

[@ansgarrudolf2123]

Thank you!! so good.

[@ClimateAdam]

thank *you* Ansgar!

[@KarolaTea]

Great video, thank you!

[@parrsnipps4495]

From where we are now in 2023 it will take 27 years until we get to net zero in 2050? That's concerning because thermal inertia, the time it takes from the time of emissions until the full effect, means today's emissions have to mostly go into the oceans then feed back into the weather some 35 years from now. So a net zero in 2050 stops GW in 2085 & that's too late. Too many greedy people wanted to make $ from their oil, gas & coal for too many decades past when it should have stopped. Think I'm being a doomer? Well, in 2022 CO2 emissions set a new record of 40.5 billion tons. The plant life on land & sea only sequesters 16 billion tons a year, so that's 24.5 billion tons added to what we've already added. At this point in time we are still setting new records of CO2 emissions?! It's beyond crazy. It's greed on scale that shanks our future into a nightmare. Sure, some people will survive it, I think, but it will be dystopian, no doubt. People will have to build places underground & they may flood in winter, but it will be better than trying to survive 138F in the middle of Summer. All crops will have to be grown underground with carefully controlled indirect sunlight allowed to shine thru via small gaps in the roofing. But I'm sure greed will still have a place. Some enterprising person will start an underground community then demand crops & 'favors' from the inhabitants.

[@ClimateAdam]

our best understanding is that when we stop emitting CO2, warming also stops. I touch on this (and other common questions) here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnzSl2qEhsqAh8U

[@samuelprice538]

Another great video Adam. Thanks

[@goodtogrow7774]

If we could get rid of greed this world would be perfect. We would think about what helps everyone and everything instead of what we gain ourselves. Most illnesses would be cured, no homelessness, no starving, free energy like hydrogen. The whole world working together for the betterment of humanity!

[@KosaBrin]

As far as I know, we have already breached the 1.5 limit. My country will be at 2.3 this year.

[@ClimateAdam]

so the 1.5 degree limit refers to the global average temperature, and how much it has risen from 1850-1900. this has not yet been breached!

[@mihaschrott6510]

@@ClimateAdam how about from 1750? What about possible cooling effects from particles that enter the atmosphere when we burn coal non-stop? There may be hidden additional global warming, masked by the dimming effect. Germany is also ramping up coal burning due to war in Ukraine, but I digress now..

[@ClimateAdam]

the cooling effects from aerosols are explicitly taken into account when climate scientists calculate how long we have to cut emissions and/or what the remaining carbon budget is. you're right that there's been more warming in total since 1750. but this is *not* the baseline that climate scientists and policymakers use, and all that matters is that they're talking about the same thing. so when a climate scientist says "we need to limit warming to 1.5 degrees to stop X (e.g. coral reefs being wiped out)" and a policymaker says "we plan to do what we can to limit warming to 1.5 degrees" - so long as they're using the same baseline it's all good.

[@KosaBrin]

@@ClimateAdam 1850 is not pre-industrial. Why would you take that time-frame?

[@fromnorway643]

If we use the dataset from HadCRUT5 and 1850-1900 as a reference period, the two warmest years so far were *1.29°C* in 2016 and *1.28°C* in 2020. The average temperature over the last five years (2017-2021) was *1.19°C* so I’m pretty sure that we can forget about limiting the warming to 1.5°C, and that we need to work really hard to stay below 2°C.

[@zazouisa_runaway4371]

Great one! Thanks !

[@bmmd187]

We are too.... Late, our suffering are beyond our control, sorry to say human being will perish

[@BobQuigley]

Since 1990 we've added approximately 2.4 billion precious humans. Every year 80 million net new precious humans join us. This requires the equivalent of one New York City worth of infrastructure etc etc etc every month.

[@niqjaw5009]

All global problems and current species extinctions are the result of the activities of excessive human populations. The single most simple solution, refraining from procreation, has nothing to do with suicide, infanticide, abortion, enforced sterilization or any form of violence. But, with worldwide education on taking reproductive responsibility in order to reduce the overall human population. This could begin a new healing for the planet; a re-wilding, beginning with freeing it from over-consumption and violent wars all depleting natural resources and destroying eco-systems on a horrific scale. ONLY with fewer humans, intentionally living with the health and well-being of the planet and other life forms in mind, could Earth, plants and animals, ever thrive again. Or better, without any human activity at all.

[@bradhicks4057]

I think PERNITIOUS Humans is more accurate.

[@wildandbarefoot]

I started 26yeats ago

[@Oscar_Barajas]

1912.

[@Shamshiadadd]

The world's climate has always been changing, even before the hysteria we see here

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

🤔 Indeed it has. The issue we are facing is the INCREASING RATE OF CHANGE. That was made clear in this video, orally and visually. Any ‘hysteria’ is in your head, not in this presentation. If you are skeptical, please show the evidence that contradicts what Adam describes on his channel. Consider the fall in the volume of water in the Nile. The numerous wildfires. The extent of desertification in the Middle East. Droughts in east Africa lasting for several years. The increasing violence of storms, with floods and landslides. The evident shrinking of icecaps and glaciers, especially on Greenland. The warming of the oceans. All of these events are contemporary happenings, with serious cumulative consequences for life on Earth. I look forward to your Ph.D thesis countering climate change and global warming as presented in this video.

[@Shamshiadadd]

@@sirmeowthelibrarycat haha yes you have successfully described climate change and I agree that it's changing. The earth's climate has always changed and at different rates. Enjoy revelling in the cult.

[@mermaidaughter7]

@@sirmeowthelibrarycat I'm not surprised of the attention span of these anti global warming preachers. Every minute day that passes by global warming is frying there brain cells at an alarming rate.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

@Me Me 😡 Congratulations on managing to put two words together. What a remarkable achievement. Unlike the millions of words from thousands of scientists specialising in climate change and global warming studies. Once again, I ask to see your extensive PhD research supporting your statement. The mystery here is that no one has yet seen a copy, or used it in reference to published research . . . !

[@fromnorway643]

One of those natural climate changes wiped out most life on Earth 250 million years ago, so “natural” doesn’t always mean “good”.

[@paulscholes54]

Thanks Adam - I feel your N-Z 2050 video gives a more balanced feel for the 50% possibility of failure. You just need to look at the graphs showing the emission pathways (cliffs) to N-Z to realise that the "yes, it's bad, and getting worse, but we can still do this" message is just exacerbating delay, if we'd taken the same approach with COVID millions more would be dead. Having said all that the 2,000+ views of this are, almost certainly, by the converted and it's the wider public who need to be informed, especially as nearly 20%, I read, still do not believe that CC is human caused. And for that we need the media to get it and to give this crisis the same sort of prominence it gave COVID.

[@Shamshiadadd]

Many of us are sick of "being informed"… Without doubt the climate is changing and without doubt man made gases will contribute some to that but how much is up for debate and why isn't the same emphasis put on the destruction of our oceans and deforestation on land which to many people are of more concern for the well being of our planet.

[@LeanAndMean44]

All but the conservative media have been very clear that climate change is anthropogenic. Even some conservative media outlets report this. And those like Fox News were also COVID-deniers/sceptics anyway, so no comparison there. Can you please give a source on that 20 % number? Just an article with the link to it or the source itself. You can cite the title. It would be a frightening number, but wouldn’t even surprise me.

[@LeanAndMean44]

@@Shamshiadadd whether it is human-caused isn’t really up for debate. You can read all the IPCC reports over the years as their language and assessments got stronger. Scientists are very honest on what is up for debate when it is. For example; the accuracy of „hot models“, „committed warming“ and even satellite temperature measurements. I could link any video or playlist on this and you can search for the terms I cited for yourself. On the topic of human influence, I strongly recommend the article „Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans“. I cannot say whether the topics you mentioned get the same attention as climate change.

[@Shamshiadadd]

@Marvin Mayhave I applaud your religious fervour, its commendable...🙄 Please enjoy your high fuel costs and don't forget to please spend some time in Europe this winter to have a little taste of what's to come for you. Oops almost forgot to remind you to keep an eye on that carbon footprint of yours....😁👍

[@raw3040]

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@RustyWalker]

Hmm 1896 ,

[@tomh1125]

F. O.

[@drawyrral]

1849

[@williamfulmer1141]

Horseshit.

[@Tasmantor]

Yeah the lack of action in the face of this disaster sure is disappointing.

[@fromnorway643]

@@Tasmantor 👍👍👍

[@maleahlock]

@@Tasmantor Absolutely!

[@RobertMJohnson]

@@Tasmantor "lack of action"....in the face of....this disaster? what disaster are you talking about?

[@oleonard7319]

The 1.5-degree window has already sailed, and we are falling backward again. At this point we are simply lucky if we stop 3 degrees

[@zacharyminor9593]

Why would the evil elites warn us?? GOD(good)is all about nature but we all know who disagree with it and now the demons are doing the dirty work to go against what god wants.

[@marksherry6589]

None of you people are taking this to the main players of C02 emissions culprits,CCP and India,why.Maybe more of us will jump on when you can show true climate action courage on a truly global playing field.But you won't.

[@nunofoo8620]

There are two types of people: Well informed people who know how to search for information and facts. These people know the top two CO2 emitters are China and the USA. Then there are the right wing xenophobes who insist that the the top two CO2 emitters are China and India. These people are proud of their ignorance and bigotry.

[@marksherry6589]

@@nunofoo8620 OK lack of courage it is then.

[@nunofoo8620]

@@marksherry6589 So you're going to keep living in a world of alternative facts? Why am i not surprised? Mark, never do a search of "Co2 emissions by country" or your little bubble might pop.

[@marksherry6589]

@@nunofoo8620 Doesn't change your lack of courage though does it.

[@nunofoo8620]

@@marksherry6589 Lack of courage in courage in regards to what?