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

Nobel Prize laureate Sir Paul Nurse wants science, not politics, to guide the debate surrounding climate change. But how do you convince the denialists?
Click here to subscribe to our channel 👉🏽 bbc.in/3VyyriM
Babita Sharma takes us through the evolving strategies of those who claim climate change isn’t real, and speaks to two young people who are trying to make a difference. UK climate activist Phoebe L Hanson founded Teach the Teacher, which gives school children the resources to engage with their teachers on climate change.
Ugandan Nyombi Morris set up a non-profit organisation, Earth Volunteers, to mobilise young people like him who wanted to promote the fight against the climate crisis.
00:00 Fleeing the floods
00:50 A climate crisis
02:20 Teach the Teacher
05:48 Climate change disinformation
09:16 Sir Paul Nurse on tackling conspiracy theories
12:41 Climate refugees taking action
15:08 Education is crucial to tackling climate change
This content was created as a co-production between Nobel Prize Outreach and the BBC. Watch more in this playlist 👉🏽 • Whose Truth?
And find more videos about climate change and the environment here 👉🏽 • Climate change and the...
----------------
This is the official BBC World Service KZbin channel.
If you like what we do, you can also find us here:
Instagram 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice
Twitter 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice
Facebook 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice
BBC World Service website 👉🏽 www.bbc.co.uk/worldserviceradio
Thanks for watching and subscribing!
#BBCWorldService #WorldService #climatechange

[@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.

[@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??

[@JousungKim-ji6hz]

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

[@danielrawlings8355]

@@JousungKim-ji6hz Whatabout GDP per capita?

[@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 )

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@user-og9fr7ct2u]

Brilliant documentary

[@absmith6237]

…..yeah ,almost believable 😂

[@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?

[@komousch]

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

[@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?

[@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.

[@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?

[@lutherleathers6720]

Bah! Humbug!

[@tonysherwood9619]

Tackling co-vaccination injury denial more like!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 !

[@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 📺🐑.

[@user-ny3vn2zh8m]

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?

[@user-ny3vn2zh8m]

@robertplant2059 your co worker was correct.

[@user-ny3vn2zh8m]

@@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]

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).

[@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.

[@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.

[@---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 😀👍

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@mike1117777]

Give up the lies

[@mrhappy4521]

I just see we’re going into an ice age👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

[@Urmumurmum2]

Propaganda

[@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.

[@dsfsdfsddf]

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

[@robertplant2059]

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

[@aguspurwanto5524]

​@@dsfsdfsddfMohammad is climate activist