The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth

A story of science, media, and the gulf between. Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/simonclark
Watch The Colorado Problem on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/wendover-the...
An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary film from 2006 by Al Gore. The year after it was released it was hauled in front of the UK high court, and found to be riddled with errors. What are these errors, and what can they tell us about climate science?
Kat's guest video: • The ultimate fluid mec...
Thomas' guest video: • The fatal flaw in The ...
REFERENCES:
1. elaw.org/content/uk-stuart-di...
2. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa...
3. www.theguardian.com/environme...
4. www.sciencedirect.com/science...
5. interactive.carbonbrief.org/p...
6. www.nature.com/articles/natur...
7. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
8. www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tan..., note that Kilimanjaro is interesting: precipitation patterns have shifted, but this seems to be in response to natural climate change
9. www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
10. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/do...
11. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Twitter - / simonoxfphys
Insta - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus. Thanks to Matt Lazo for their work helping compile the literature for this project.
This video is about An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary film by Al Gore about climate change, global warming, carbon emissions and sea level rise. We talk through the Dimmock court case that led to a judge ruling An Inconvenient Truth was inaccurate in nine ways and changing its distribution to schools. Is An Inconvenient Truth propaganda? No, but Al Gore is making a political point in An Inconvenient Truth.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Fipeczek, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Veronica Castello-Vooght, Heijde, Paul H and Linda L, Marcus Bosshard, Liat Khitman, Dan Sherman, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Stormchaser007 , Daniël Sneep, Dan Nelson, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Igor Francetic, bitreign33 , Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Andrea De Mezzo.
Christian Weckner, Frida Sørensen, Ned Funnell, Corné Vriends, Aleksa Stankovic, Indira Pranabudi, Chaotic Brain Person, Simon H., Julian Mendiola, Woufff, Ben Cooper, Mark Injerd, dryfrog, Justin Warren, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Riz, The Confusled, Conor Safbom, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Ieuan Williams, Tom Malcolm, Brady Johnston, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thomas Rintoul, Lars Hubacher, Ashley Wilkins, Samuel Baumgartner, ST0RMW1NG 1, Morten Engsvang, Cio Cio San, Farsight101, Haris Karimjee, K.L, fourthdwarf, Sam Ryan, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Jack Troup, Sven Ebel, Sean Richards, Kedar , Alastair Fortune, Mat Allen, Colin J. Brown, Mach_D, Keegan Amrine, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.

[@devilskitchen]

Perhaps you could do a video examining all of the predictions by climate scientists, and how accurate they have been?

[@user-un4mu1hj5o]

That's what I was expecting based on the title.

[@ryancappo]

I only think the sea level issues aren’t fully understood and might not be 100% right by the scientists, because we don’t understand the amount of groundwater.

[@bartroberts1514]

Ben Santer did something like this years ago, an exhaustive survey of every prediction reported by the IPCC. 95% of projections of harm turned out to be too conservative; the actual changes and losses were larger than predicted, often by orders of magnitude, and faster, nineteen times in twenty.

[@JamesAnderson-dp1dt]

There have been many, and all have been wrong. Done! 😊 Just kidding. I'd like to see such a video too -- but the bottom line will be as I stated.

[@ahauckify]

Perhaps they could do a video comparing climate scientists today and Exxon’s scientists from the 1950s that accurately predicted the global changes we’ve been experiencing. And then we could follow it with a slow roll of every congressional delegation from every fossil fuel state, one by one - so folks know who to vote against?

[@OurEden]

This is so interesting, and a great reminder that climate communication need not be sensationalised, as the objective truth is powerful in and of itself.

[@Noqtis]

muuuuuuuuuh climate crisis fucking npcs

[@jaykanta4326]

@@Noqtis GFY, denialist.

[@jeffw7382]

But you get more grant money if you sensationalize things.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@jeffw7382 Could you cite some cases of this? I've been involved in grant processes for over four decades, and found a great aversion for sensationalism. Further, by far the largest source of grant funding in the world, committees of the US Congress, have been controlled by Republicans and representatives from coal and oil states, showing clear regulatory capture by the fossil sector, and in no way attracted to sensation. James Hansen's well-known suppression by the US government, the funding of denialists like UAH's weather satellite team of Spencer and Christy whom have been found manipulating NASA data to hide the rise eleven times without professional repercussion, in addition to publicly vowing as part of the Cornwall Alliance to deny all evidence for climate change, and on and on tells us you're making a claim that is audaciously wrong.

[@BladeValant546]

​@@jeffw7382 more if you muddy and/or deny it....

[@Nostrudoomus]

On the UC DAVIS website, there have been web pages up for many years about nitrogen and boreal forests. You have to read their long explanations for at least a couple pages to understand what they are talking about! If you do so you will learn they are talking about nitrogen in the mountain ⛰️ waters of boreal forests feeding the forest trees 🌲 and causing HUGE growth blooms of those forests when there are excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. They say this needs to be more studied because the trees are obviously using the nitrogen directly from the mountain waters without mycorrhiza in those soils to make the nitrogen available to the trees 🌲. AND IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES THESE FOREST BLOOMS HAVE REVERSED RAPID RISES IN CO2 IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, ABSORBING MASIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2! If you really have some understanding how nature works, like I do, you would KNOW that once in history nature has corrected some adversity in the Earth’s biome, it will happen again and again from then on rapidly and automatically. Therefore, your global warming is a LIE that should NOT be feared and ALL OF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL! 😅

[@regmcguire5582]

Polar bears swim very well, in fact. Inuit have observed over decades seeing them well out to sea swimming and hunting, since water in the summer is a fact of life for them. I would also note that there exists lots of data around sea levels, which have changed very little over a hundred or more years.

[@andylitespeed]

I am inclined to add that CO2 and temperature, seemingly in lock step is not proof of anything. If you plot ice-cream sales and shark attacks on the US Eastern seaboard you get excellent correlation but eating ice-cream does not cause shark attacks, clearly, it's just that more people eat ice-cream and get into the sea when the weather is good. In fact, the oceans store much more CO2 than the atmosphere and release it when they warm and take more in when they cool. Further in geological time frames CO2 and temperature spend more time moving in opposite directions, something never mentioned by climate alarmists. The IPCC was never and is not an independent scientific body, on the contrary they were hired to find anthropogenic climate change to help justify UN "Climate Change" policy. I think you are being far too kind to Al Gore in this video, my biggest critique of him offering ordinary folk advice on changing to energy efficient light bulbs etc (which of course people have done when they were economically viable) is that he runs multiple homes with huge electricity bills, jets around the world burning enormous amounts of CO2 while telling us to do the opposite.

[@sammy2tires320]

Spot on, the pair of ya 😉😎👍

[@seditt5146]

Thats the thing though, they are not in lock step. Sometimes CO2 goes up then temperature goes up and sometimes temp goes up then CO2 goes up. This is more suggestive of a common cause than a direct causative effect on their own. The entire premise of CO2 causing global warming is absurd at its core. It would be like doing their flawed hotbox experiments that were retracted, taking CO2 out of the air in the box and then breathing in it somewhere withing a square mile or so to add faint CO2 from your breath into the box. There is almost no CO2 released from humans on the grand scale of things. @@andylitespeed

[@mrunning10]

several hundred years don't matter numbnuts.

[@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye]

@@seditt5146 You and ya mates (the echo chamber), the wilfully ignorant contrarians, continuing to make up hilariously mischievous narratives full of tired old silly themes, that don't explain a single thing about the situation, LOL. Keep trying entertaining us. Thanks.

[@rennnnn914]

I have to comment on your statement that peoples of pacific islands are not evacuating due to sea level rises. We, in Australia are already making plans to take in residents of these islands due to sea level rise. Although these people are relocating to different areas within their nations at the moment due to constant inundations due to sea level rise, it won't be long before they can't do that any more and other countries have to take them in. Movement is happening, even if it can't really be called evacuations as such right now. There are negotiations happening and talks about how to deal with 'statelessness' happening every day.

[@misterlyle.]

A rising sea level isn't merely a problem of gradual change, as it seems many people may imagine it. The slow contamination of low-lying resources is certainly a problem, but the process of sporadic storm surges of higher and higher wave action is a bigger threat. The last storm tide reached a certain level, but the next one in a few years will not cause "gradual change," but could result in unprecedented catastrophic damage. Advance preparations are essential, so it is good to hear that Australian leaders are already at work.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@misterlyle. Also, equipartition of sea level rise is a myth in another way. Evidence from iceberg raft debris found in core samples suggests that sea level rise mainly happens intermittently in sub-decadal surges of several meters at a time. Why? Well, the Lake Agassiz episode is a prime example: an ice dam breaks leading to inundation, with a positive feedback of a small amount of sea level rise breaking more ice dams globally. Currents shift, leading to even more sea level rise on one side of the ocean, causing more positive feedback.

[@misterlyle.]

@@bartroberts1514 Thanks for the response, Bart. I haven't heard of Lake Agassiz before now, but I have heard of a similar ancient glacial reservoir, Lake Missoula which helped creatively shape the geography of North America.

[@AvangionQ]

14:51 Way to bury the lede. Makes me wish you'd have STARTED with this statement: "Al Gore's film is almost entirely accurate and the hypotheses of climate change as depicted in the film are very well supported by the evidence."

[@HopefullyUnoptimistic]

I'd argue the lede is more at 12:48 with the one thing that the judge couldn't have seen. But either one is fair.

[@kracheconomique]

I disagree. Polar bear population is growing... The ice cap is at its largest since the last 20 years...the coral reef is also growing again. There is no man made climate change look it up.. this film was just political propoganda... Ps it s called Greenland is because it was not ice ...

[@petermarsh4993]

Regarding the link between CO2 and temperature: The historical record, including that promulgated by the IPCC has temperature peaks BEFORE peaks in CO2, not AFTER. This would imply the causal trigger is rises in global temperature and the effect is rises in CO2. This has to exclude the populist theory that rises in CO2 trigger temperature rises, where the argument is twisted to be the wrong way around. The scientific reason for the link is that global temperature rises trigger warming of the oceans and hence a release of dissolved CO2. The flip side when Earth cools CO2 is captured by the oceans and CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline. If you look at a chart of the Palaeolithic Time Period you can see peaks in temperature occurring roughly 100,000 years apart each followed by a peak of CO2 approximately 800 years later. It’s a simple chicken vs the egg problem. In each case the chicken {Temperature rise} occurs first and the egg {peak in CO2} comes second. This is not the model for global warming in action as the alarmists would have you believe. Source: IPCC report for scientists circa 2006, Patric Moore, one time Chairman of Greenpeace and currently independent Scientist / Commentator.

[@mightymike2192]

Indeed. I'm surprised he didn't pick up on that one.

[@64bitAtheist]

Thank you.

[@matthiashesse1996]

Well that's what's commonly known as a feedback loop, CO2 (or other factors such as Milankovich-cycles) causes a rise in global temperatures which in turn leads to rising CO2-levels, which then again lead to rising temperatures and so on. This is, btw, exactly what so many climate scientists keep warning us about. 😉

[@J4Zonian]

@pet Nope. Pythonic arguments over a dead parrot. In the past, orbital cycles over 20,000, 40,000, & 100,000 years have triggered warming, which caused a release of some CO2, which then became the driver of every warming. Feedbacks like ice melt, water vapor, etc. heighten it, but CO2 has been the driver in every one. Now, human-emitted CO2 that had been locked in deposits since the Carboniferous age 300 million years ago (plus other greenhouse gases emitted by chemical-industrial agriculture, deforestation, degrasslandization, demangrovization, & industrialization are driving the warming. CO2 is still the driver, as it has always been. But this time it’s human-caused CO2. "CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?” Skeptical Science The consensus has grown with the evidence: “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change” Krishna Ramanujan, Cornell Chronicle, Cornell U. October 19, 2021 “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature” Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry 19 October 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” Skeptical Science, 30 July 2010 Look at the Patrick Moore page on Desmog. “Response to Patrick Moore's "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change”” Potholer54 video “Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass” "Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Paid by Coal Lobbyists EURACOAL To Speak To EU Officials and Members of Parliament Kyla Mandelon, Desmog, Mar. 14, 2016 "What President Trump, Fox and Breitbart Are Not Saying About Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore" Graham Readfearn, Desmog, Mar. 12, 2019 "WUWT has a poll published today to guess what the minimum arctic sea ice extent is going to be for this year. So far approximately one third of the responders have submitted an answer that has already been exceeded. That’s basically about as dumb as calling a coin flip wrong after watching it land. erased comment on: Thinkprogress 8/31/2011 “The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change“ Moore was NEVER chairman of Greenpeace. IOW, he lied about that, too. Calling him anything but a lying shill for fossil & fissile fuels, pesticides, tobacco, & other destructive industries is lying, too. As far as I can tell your “source” is nothing but what Moore himself, a scorned & excoriated liar-for-hire, said. He misrepresents science, consensus, his own history, & everything else. In front of Congress, no less, for which he could & should be prosecuted.

[@turbobear9404]

@@mightymike2192 Why would he? He has an agenda.

[@Frumibandersnatch]

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. 😂

[@J4Zonian]

@Frum Corals all over the world have suffered numerous very stressful bleaching events as the world has warmed. Some have recovered, some have partly recovered but are weaker, many have died. Earth continues to warm faster & faster, so corals will become extinct unless they’re saved by massive emergency government action to stop using fossil fuels & chemical industrial agriculture. The lunatic far right wing needs to stop denying reality.

[@J4Zonian]

@Frum "Global climate change is now considered to be the biggest long-term threat to Australia’s coral reefs, with many under threat from increased temperatures and changes in ocean circulation patterns. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is also causing increased ocean acidification.” Know who said that? The Australian Institute of Marine Science. (AIMS, “Coral") Science & scientists overwhelmingly agree that coral is threatened with extinction because of climate catastrophe & other human pollution.

[@J4Zonian]

@Frum "Above-average water temperatures led to a mass coral bleaching event over the austral summer of 2021/22, the fourth event since 2016 and the first recorded during a La Niña year.” "Nearly half of the surveyed reefs (39 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 10% and 30%, while almost a third of the surveyed reefs (28 out of 87) had hard coral cover levels between 30% and 50%.” “In periods free from intense acute disturbances, most GBR coral reefs demonstrate resilience through the ability to begin recovery. However, the reefs of the GBR continue to be exposed to cumulative stressors. The prognosis for the future disturbance regime suggests increasing and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, as well as the ongoing risk of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. Therefore, while the observed recovery offers good news for the overall state of the GBR, there is increasing concern for its ability to maintain this state.” That’s scientist-speak for Holy shit! Time to panic! Sorry you didn’t recognize it. "Long-Term Monitoring Program Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition" The Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2021/22 But what about 2023, the hottest year in 125,000 years? "Chris Gloninger on Gobsmacking Ocean Heat” This Is Not Cool, Feb/Mar. 2024 "Current Ocean surface temperatures at once-in-256,000 year level. That sounds bad. Is that bad?"

[@artlewellan2294]

As a transportation system planner, I question how global warming is supposedly addressed solely with "renewable" energy and "electrifying everything." Of the 3 basic EV drivetrains (BEV all-battery vs PHEV plug-in hybrid vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV), which of the 3 offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV which could logically serve 65% future EV needs. BEV serves the remainder in lightweight and short-distance travel needs. Hydrogen fuel cell has no serviceable EV application because 'combustible' hydrogen in the ICEngine of a PHEV+H drivetrain stores at much lower pressure in smaller-safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in HFCEVs. PHEV+H tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks. The huge battery packs of BEV freight trucks (500+kwh) will deplete and must be replaced at 150k -200k miles. Distribute the same battery resource to 'FIVE' 100kwh PHEV packs (which also last 150k-200k miles) and they collectively deliver 750k to 1million miles plus cost less to replace. The real problem is we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. We truck and ship essential commodities too far, ship air freight, fly for recreation and otherwise play with motorized big boy toys entirely too much. There is no getting around these facts with "electrifying everything" business as usual.

[@ahauckify]

An Inconvenient Truth was a delicate balancing act: make it seem scary enough to finally get conservatives to see the severity of the problem while not sensationalizing it so much that the film’s arguments can be dismissed as hyperbole.

[@bartroberts1514]

Except conservatives like myself had been on board on the severity of the problem long before AIT. Since 1965's President's Science Advisory Committee report by Revelle et al, we knew this was a problem and that the solution was an end to extracting carbon from the ground. The problem was that some of us put themselves and their fossilphilia ahead of everything else, because of the influence of Epicurean miscreants (looking at you Ayn Rand) who found dressing up as RINOs gave them cover for their selfishness and leverage in elections.

[@ecoideazventures6417]

Completely agree, it is the movie that changed mindsets among vast number of people! When a cup is exactly half full, both optimists and pessimists can argue their cases easily

[@82fdny97]

Its hyperbole

[@peterschreiner9245]

And yet it is nothing BUT hyperbole.

[@ahauckify]

@@peterschreiner9245 sure, dude. Free country - hell, millions of people believe there’s a sky daddy - doesn’t mean they’re right.

[@SaintPhoenixx]

Great to see you back Dr Simon Clark, official real doctor of science things.

[@VuLamDang]

a German, I assume?

[@ErikPelyukhno]

Great to see you back SaintPhoenixx, I see you haven’t watched the video

[@JohnSmith-cg3cv]

I'm new to this. Is SaintPhoeniix a troll that comments on Simon Clark videos, mocking Simon?

[@scienceislove2014]

​@@JohnSmith-cg3cvi was wondering the same!

[@johndallara3257]

He said nothing.

[@mrcalzon02]

The big companies don't want you to hold them accountable. ever. for anything.

[@abajojoe]

I read the judge's decision. You missed the mark on what he said about the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. He stated that, though there is correlation between the two, close examination revealed that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. Thus, the graph more likely indicated that increased temperatures caused increased CO2 levels, not that increased CO2 caused increased temperatures. There might be other evidence that CO2 increases cause increased temperatures, but this graph does not qualify.

[@misterlyle.]

"Climate skeptics cherry-pick data and they take findings out of context in order to make statements that fly completely counter to the scientific consensus." Mr. Clark follows that up with a statement about the problem of exaggerated claims made by climate activists that are nevertheless still grounded in fact. *The first quote appears to suggest that no scientist should ever make statements that oppose the scientific consensus.* If that is what he means, it is a highly irresponsible statement for a science educator to make, especially one who recognizes the complexity and nuance associated with some areas of study.

[@greeny1033]

Nice to see you back, and what a good video to release with, I also watched this film just out of interest during my Ocean Science undergraduate degree, but critically looking at it raised some eyebrows from me, especially the oceanic componants...

[@user-hf4be3hr2u]

Am I the only one who noticed the incorrect animation at 4:43? (the ice in the glass--the ice below the waterline would DROP the water level...and only THEN would the ice above the water level begin to fill. Since the volume of the ice above the water level is less than or equal to the space in the glass above the water level, then it is not possible for the water to overflow the glass....

[@jeff022889]

You nailed it. That's a perfect example of the Climate deception game that has many 100-millionaires in it's wake including Gore.

[@tealkerberus748]

Yep. Melting sea ice is a problem in its own way, but the only way it contributes to rising sea levels is when the sea ice was a dam stopping the land ice siding down into the ocean. The actual sea level rise is always from that land ice.

[@socratesrocks1513]

I'm still struggling here. Given evaporation from the oceans due to heat increases CO2 in the atmosphere, do we know CO2 is at the root of climate change, or is it merely a CONSEQUENCE of climate change and we need to look elsewhere? We're using models that think you can have negative cloud cover and don't know fresh water freezes as 0 C. Instead of fixing the physics, they've added fudges to stop these errors, and that tells me the models aren't accurate. Before we impoverish the western world by switching off all fossil fuels (which, btw, would also remove clothing, computers, phones, windfarms and solar panels, shoe soles, eye glasses, medicines, medical equipment, food deliveries to northern climes in winter, and just about everything else that has ensured the flourishing of humans on Earth since they are ALL based on on oil derivatives), wouldn't it be a good thing to be absolutely CERTAIN increased CO2 is CAUSING increased temps and not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the models accurate to actual physics instead of using ad-hoc fudges to conform to a political agenda? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to the satellite temperature data (which says the temperature hasn't gone up that much) rather than weather stations that are being surrounded by urban sprawl or are next airports? Might it be an idea to move the CO2 sensors off the Hawaiian islands (known for volcanic activity) and base them somewhere there is NO volcanic activity? Also, if CO2 (plant food, remember, which was at 1,000 ppm when primates first evolved -- the optimum level for plant life and the level we pump it into greehouses) IS the driving force, and neither China nor India have ANY intention to stop their use, what difference will it make to starve and impoverish the advanced countries which have the equipment and money to find solutions?

[@carlbonnachetti4740]

But it has now been found that the Antartic ice has grown by over 5000km since 2009 as evidenced and peer reviewd by European Geosciences Union. Check it out their paper is called change in antartic ice shelf area 2009 to 2019

[@jaykanta4326]

Sorry, no. That's only ice shelves on the coastal areas where increases in precipitation have been possible due to warming.

[@nickwilliams3659]

Good to see you back Simon. Hope things are going good.

[@philipmeyer7402]

5:00 you made a small error - arctic sea ice melt does not significantly contribute to sea level rise because of displacement.

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

If it is ice trapped on land it is a contributing factor becouse the mass is not part ov the ocean

[@bnielsen56]

@@definitlynotbenlente7671 I don't think there's and land at the Arctic...

[@bnielsen56]

..any land...

[@danilooliveira6580]

@@bnielsen56 yes, there is, the greenland ice sheet. the greenland ice is continental ice, its not floating on the sea, meaning if it melts it will contribute with sea level rise.

[@bnielsen56]

@@danilooliveira6580 The Greenland Ice Sheet extends from approximately 60° N to 80° N and thus is not in the polar zone, so don't say it's part of the Arctic. This is just more of the same misinformation that surrounds the issue - don't add to it. Also look up when was the last time it melted. Even in prior inter-glacial periods that were much warmer than today (>5egC), the ice never melted at the poles.

[@user-un8qj2nw6q]

I have data based on antarctic ice cores that says that the higher CO2 levels follow rising temperatures not the other way around. The last Ice Age ended about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. This means that we may be less than halfway through an inter-glacial period, hence, I would expect global avg temperatures to continue rising for a few more centuries or perhaps millennia with or without human contributions of CO2

[@KC-Mitch]

This film had many, many flaws. But what it was great at was getting people to focus on climate change and the impending issues that're plaguing the planet. So, I give VP Gore credit for making this issue known to the public, despite it's many flaws. It's just like how _Super Size Me_ changed the landscape of Fast Food culture, despite all of that documentary's issues.

[@MandoMTL]

🤡🤡🤡

[@ems4884]

I think it was unfortunately preaching to the converted but maybe my memory is faulty. Super size me was an unscientific stunt. Everyone already know the health risks of that kind of diet many c years before then.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

The political impact of media can be really interesting because you can never know what's going to be the effect. Like, surely the general public would have cared about climate change at some point, but it just so happens that An Inconvenient Truth, a work by a politician, is what generated awareness. It's like how The Jungle, a _novel,_ was raised awareness about the meatpacking industry, even though it was intended to be a socialist story.

[@ecomquest]

Exactomundo. There was no other Academy Award documentary describing global warming to the public. Al Gore really helped the Climate Change movement. Simon should NEVER have implied Gore might have actually diminished it

[@duran9664]

Climate warming/change has been one of the biggest scam in modern history 🤢🤢🤮 Neptune climate is changing too. 😒 HOW DARE YOU😡

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

10:23 there is the fact that co2 lags the global temperature rise by about 800 years during the glacial-interglacial transition during an overall ice age, although that was caused by milankovitch cycles rising temperatures first by changing the amount sunlight hitting the polar ice caps in summer which melts the ice, reduces the albedo, and causes the planet to warm up, than co2 is degassed from the oceans (because co2 is less soluble in warmer water, it’s one reason why you store carbonated drinks like Soda cold), than that causes most of the warming after which is why we enter an interglacial period. So while the initial warming is caused by milankovitch cycles during a glacial-interglacial transition, most of the warming comes after co2 is degassed from the oceans which amplifies the warming. The forcing from milankovitch cycles alone isn’t enough to actually stop or start glacial cycles. Just thought I’d mention it because it is a misleading claim many climate “skeptics” make “because if co2 lags temps than it can cause it to rise”.

[@YraxZovaldo]

The lag of 800 years isn’t a definitive fact. More recent studies have found that the time difference is smaller or even that they happened so close that the order of what happened first is indistinguishable. It also has the problem that this idea is based on ice core data. Ice core data can only be collected in certain places and won’t tell what the global temperature is doing.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@YraxZovaldo what study? Because co2 is not what initially ended glacial cycles and the glacial interglacial transitions line up perfectly with the milankovitch cycles. And co2 couldn’t rise if the oceans didn’t get warmer, something had to initially start it off. But most of the warming (I think like 90%, I need to check) following the initial warming is caused by more co2

[@YraxZovaldo]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI This paper for example: Marcott, S. A., Bauska, T. K., Buizert, C., Steig, E. J., Rosen, J. L., Cuffey, K. M., ... & Brook, E. J. (2014). Centennial-scale changes in the global carbon cycle during the last deglaciation. Nature, 514(7524), 616-619. I'm not saying that CO2 is the initial cause of warming. However, the idea that the 800 year lag is a fact, is wrong.

[@jaykanta4326]

CO2 is now absolutely the only factor capable of warming the atmosphere. Nothing else has changed like GHGs, mainly CO2. Also, the last ice age ended because of a massive burp of CO2 from the Southern Ocean. "Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation" - Marino, et al 2015

[@jaykanta4326]

@@YraxZovaldo Yep, the 800 year lag thing is a common myth pushed by right wing denialist blogs.

[@scienceislove2014]

"Taking a complex statement and reducing it down to snappy headlines..." This happens a lot more than should be acceptable... I hate it...

[@JD-oc3jx]

We do have a climate crisis. The Arctic summer ice volume declined from 17,000 km3 in 1979 to only 5,000 km3 last year. It is hard to predict the results of this rapid melting.

[@kala_asi]

18:45 "content is served to us algorithmically" made me chuckle, the video has conditioned my brain to expect that last word to have something to do with Al Gore

[@GregoryFlynn]

Al Gore Rhythmically!

[@Rzagski]

The earths climate is ever changing and has always changed. I’m older than you and I remember when in the 70s we were told climate change would include a resurgence of and ice age by now. Also heard was that most costal areas would be flooded out by now in the 80s and there would be no more polar bears. Al gore also was an owner and profited from many climate scare related industries like solar. He also purchased a lot of bit coin before it was available for public purchase. Money was his main driver. I detest the amount of garbage polluting our world and I think that is a much bigger cause for concern. I also question “science” since “experts” forced a covid vaccine on all when it wasn’t really necessary. Data supports my previous statement. Solar is a good idea, but the world cannot be run by solar that only is here on earth.

[@catherineleslie-faye4302]

Please look at the situation in the Maldieves... people have been evacuated from there and several other pacific islands then resettled in the USA because of seal level rise; and Norfolk VA USA is loosing a navy base to sea level rise. All movies are political.

[@raymondborror6996]

Simon, I am very surprised that you did not mention the most serious error of the film: the climate temperature "hockey stick". Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period (900 - 1300 AD, when Greenland was actually green) and the Mini Ice Age (1300 - 1850). It is also interesting to note that climate alarmists like Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property that would be flooded if Sea Rise was a serious issue. It is a known fact that climate activists are always making wild, shrill predictions of climate catastrophe because they want people to take action. I would recommend that you review Dr Rich Lindzen's video, "Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?". It shows a graph of Global Warming starting around 1850, long before human activity was a significant factor.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"Completely omitting the Medival Warm Period" The MWP was not globally coherent, the average global temperature was actually lower then than now. "Obama, Gore and Keery all own beachfront property" This is, by a wide margin, the stupidest argument denialists make. It's shockingly dumb, for so many reasons it's hard to know where to start. But here's the short form: Rich people want to live by the beach, and they don't care if it'll flood in 100 years.

[@jonpark6650]

The only thing that increased with our new Al Gore Rhythms is Al Gore's bank accounts and the amount of jet fuel he has expelled.

[@scaredyfish]

Thanks for making this. It’s important to acknowledge errors, particularly on our own ‘side’. Bad faith actors will use errors against us, which makes it tempting to deny them, but doing so just plays into their hands.

[@Tinil0]

I've sadly found that these days an increasing number of people online are perfectly happy just to be on the "right side" rather than be arguing with actual facts and knowledge. If you point out logical errors or mistakes of fact in their arguments, they will often just accuse you of being opposed to what they are saying or worse, conservative.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Tinil0 Increasing? I've been on the internet since it was just IRC and document exchange. It's been this way always, just like face to face. And actual facts and knowledge require something deeper than mere trading of quips.

[@MAORIguy25]

@@bartroberts1514 sure, but you haven’t considered [quip] So really [unrelated argumentative point]

[@bartroberts1514]

@@MAORIguy25 Far Side?

[@gregroberts8674]

@@Tinil0 funny.....I've found the exact opposite to be true. The "left" considers the science to be "settled", no matter how many scientific arguments are shown that totally dispute the effects of man-made climate change. And to be clear, I do believe that man does have a measurable effect on our climate, but it's barely measurable and the Earth can handle that effect quite easily.

[@madcow3417]

Criticizing An Inconvenient Truth? You're one of them! *grabs pitchfork. Seriously though, I always appreciate it when 'my side' is corrected. That means there's more knowledge to soak up. Thank you for this video.

[@privateer0561]

You're the only one.

[@richsackett3423]

@@privateer0561 Only one what? It's got 14 likes.

[@archiebald4717]

Al's only objective was to make enough money to buy a beachfront mansion, despite his stated fears about rising sea levels, which he did. The Arctic ice sheet is not reducing at all. The climate is doing nothing unusual. His pictures of Mount Fuji, showed its snow cover in winter and in summer, job done.

[@jeremiahmauricio5377]

The problem with attribution modeling is that it assumes the models are accurate, and yet not a single public prediction on climate that I can find has ever been close to accurate. When I say close, I mean, did the predicted result get within 2X of the prediction, from my reading, it's never even close! A model that can't make predictions isn't a good model and so any type of attribution study based on a bad model isn't a good study.

[@matthiashesse1996]

? Sure doesn't seem like every model is wrong... www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp

[@J4Zonian]

@je …a peer-reviewed study found that global climate models are even more accurate than previously thought. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way agupubs onlinelibrary wiley "How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?”potholer54 doing what he does, debunking nonsense, this time on models "Correcting the underestimation in the current IPCC future average global temperature projections…" .jobone for humanity "Most Accurate Models Predict Highest Climate Warming" December 18, 2017 climatecrocks The difference between scenarios, projections, predictions and (weather) forecasts climate4impact eu impact portal 
The IPCC has underestimated the observed speed and direness of climate effects 20 times more often than it's overestimated or hit it exactly right. Over and over the most dire scenarios in studies have turned out to be the most accurate, and every aspect of climate catastrophe has moved faster than expected for decades, right up to this week: The extent of ice floating around the continent has contracted to below 2m sq km for 3 years in a row, indicating an ‘abrupt critical transition’ US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Guardian 24/2/2024 Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early Reuters, June 18, 2019 
"Scientists amazed as..." We've heard phrases like that hundreds of times over the last few decades-almost every time a new study of ice melt anywhere, for example, adds new scientific measurements to the accumulating data, AKA facts. “Antarctica sea ice reaches alarming low for third year in a row” How good have climate models been at truly predicting the future? 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred. In an upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Zeke Hausfather, Henri Drake, Tristan Abbott and I [Gavin Schmidt] took a look at how well climate models have actually been able to accurately project warming in the years after they were published. This is an extension of the comparisons we have been making on RealClimate for many years, but with a broader scope and a deeper analysis. We gathered all the climate models published between 1970 and the mid-2000s that gave projections of both future warming and future concentrations of CO2 and other climate forcings "IPCC Reviews Climate Models. Turns Out They’ve Been Spot On" This Is Not Cool, May 7, 2022 30th anniversary of Hansen’s testimony: “BBC Spot-on in 1988 - Warming will be Greatest in the Arctic” This Is Not Cool, June 24, 2018 “What we knew in 82” This Is Not Cool, 2018/06/24 
“James Hansen's 1988 testimony after 30 years. How did he do?” youtube The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well. We’ve looked at the skill in the Hansen et al (1988) simulations before (back in 2008), and we said at the time that the simulations were skillful and that differences from observations would be clearer with a decade or two’s more data. Well, another decade has passed! realclimate Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today CO2 in the atmosphere has reached unprecedented levels. May 14, 2019 (thinkprogress exxon predicted high carbon emissions) Most things denying delayalists call “predictions" are really projections, parts of multiple sets of mathematical hypotheses in studies. On the other hand, the actual predictions by the denying delayalist industry have turned out to be way off over and over and over. Overwhelmingly.
(skeptical science ice age predictions in 1970s) “Checkmate: how do climate deniers' predictions stack up?” The Guardian, Dec 19, 2017 David Evans (Jo Nova’s husband) makes a prediction. And another. and another… Oops. (hotwhopper 2016/02 another cool prediction from force-x) Climate science has been making remarkably good projections (1) since the 1970s (Nuccitelli 2015) and IPCC projections are on track. (2) Meanwhile even recent “predictions” (3) by Heartland’s denialist friends have failed miserably. (4) (1) theguardian climate-consensus 97 per-cent 2015/jul/31 climate models are even more accurate than you thought (2) skeptical science ipcc global warming projections (3) hotwhopper 2013/12/ denier weirdness crank blog popularity (4) reuters climate change bets

[@Phylaetra]

So - to maybe give some balance to the 'urgency' objection - while the events described may not happen for decades to centuries, the time to act to mitigate the future damage is closing _quickly_, so the need to act is urgent, even if the effect may be remote in time. Attribution - as I recall, the argument was that events like Katrina, the loss of glaciers, the drying up of lakes were all _more_ _likely_ to occur from climate change, and that we should expect to see more events like these, not that any one is specifically caused by climate change. It has been close to 20 years since I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", but certainly these 'errors' were not so great that they have overwhelmed what I have picked up in the meantime. Sadly, it appears that the more pessimistic projections seem to be the way we are heading.

[@AvangionQ]

Sea level rise is predicted to be between 1.3 to 1.6 meters by 2100, but the IPCC has consistently underestimated sea level rise in their projections, so the idea this is a lowball is plausible. Arctic Ocean is predicted to be sea ice free by between 2035 and 2040, known as the blue ocean event, is the acceleration turning point where global warming is out of humanity's hands. Solomon Islands are five Pacific islands which have already been submerged due to sea level rise, and a sixth, Tuvalu, home to 12,000 people, is likely to join them in the next few decades. Regarding Kilimanjaro, I have to ask how it's possible that mountains melting isn't attributed to global warming. There are so many locations where mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating.

[@SimonClark]

see the note in the description - it seems the glaciers are retreating due to changes in precipitation, but that likely took place in the late 19th century and so likely due to natural climate change

[@bartroberts1514]

@@SimonClark Industrial Revolution started in the 1700's. Which may well have driven those precipitation changes in the late 19th century (as in almost certainly did). Natural climate change hasn't happened at any point since human influences on land use and atmospheric content grew to push positive feedback loops past tipping points, likely for six thousand years or more, to some degree. Also, Greenland's ice sheet is only about 10% the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, and about equal to all the other ice sheets in the world combined, so that 7 meters of sea level rise from Greenland's melt over hundreds of years is only one eleventh of the total, and thermal expansion is more than half of sea level rise during that timeframe, so 7 meters over 1,000 years would be 7 meters over 1000/22 overall. There you go: as much as 7 meters in 50 years, on assumptions of equipartition.

[@chrisruss9861]

Last I heard China was making the most of Solomons as strategic port base and they had not sunk.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@chrisruss9861 Relevance?

[@AvangionQ]

@@chrisruss9861 There's numerous islands in the Solomons, five of which have sunk under the rising tide, six more are on the brink of going under in the coming years. Fortunately, none of them are heavily inhabited. There are other Pacific island nations which are in deep trouble, starting with Tuvalu. What China is doing is adding a lot more dirt and sand to existing atolls and rising them up. They're doing it for strategic military reasons, to claim control over the majority of the South China Sea, and in doing so are aggravating their neighbors and putting themselves at odds with US foreign policy. You'd think all this is a separate discussion from what global warming is doing to the oceans though.

[@Harry_Nads]

When he says lying by omission he nailed it. With the 24/7 news cycle they only present one side because if they present the other side their argument falls apart. Most important to the climate scientist the money goes away. Follow the money folks...

[@J4Zonian]

@I Astounding that you criticize people whose chosen profession limits almost every one of them to at most a middle class income, while ignoring the tens of millions going to denying delayalist policy makers like oil executives & PR/lobbying bigwigs. Any scientist disproving global warming would also be paid many millions by the insane right wing, as Wei-Hock Soon & others already have been despite their utter ineffectiveness disproving anything. The science, evidence, & scientists are completely clear: 99.9% of papers (Cornell, 2021) & scientists, & every single major & national scientific organization in the world agree now: Earth is warming. It’s caused by humans. It’s a dire threat to civilization & nature.

[@cheapcomedy130]

"Is it a political film? Yes!"

[@sathreyn9699]

I have to applaud your strength of will in not calling this video "An inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth." That aside, thank you Dr Clark for giving a detailed and nuanced exploration of the topic; while it's good to get people engaged with the problem of climate change, proper solutions require accurate information.

[@vernonfrance2974]

@sathreyn9699 We have more accurate information now two decades later. You certainly don't think knowing faierly accurately about a problem means you have to have the solution 20 years in advance do you?

[@Rick-yk5qb]

It's not a problem, it's a global scam.

[@Rick-yk5qb]

@@vernonfrance2974 Facts prove it's all lies.

[@vernonfrance2974]

@@Rick-yk5qb It is incredible to believe that the human population with it's ingenuity having created a technology that uses so much energy would not have an accelerating impact on the Earth.

[@Rick-yk5qb]

@@vernonfrance2974 Science isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. I can prove CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and that's all I need to falsify the hypothesis. Would you like to see the proof? Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images." Do you see atm. CO2 and temperatures going in opposite directions? Yes, therefore CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the hypothesis is false. That's how science works.

[@Slaeowulf]

I must say I love the comments being full of right wing conspiracy nutters who didn't watch the video. It's like Sideshow Bob walking into the rakes over and over again.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@specialkonacid6574 ..or Cobalt mines are full of dying children!!!

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

That's such a perfect metaphor I'm surprised I don't see it in internet discourse more often.

[@Madonnalitta1]

Wow, you guys are stuck on broken. Anthropomorphic climate change is nonsense. No, I'm not right wing. It's just convenient for you to label any who disagree with you as such, it's childish and lazy.

[@forumsentme]

Anyone notice something odd about Al Gore's graph shown at 10:23 in this video? When you compare two elements in a line chart, you're supposed to overlay the lines so you can directly compare them. I've never seen a graph where the two lines are separated like they are Al Gore's movie. Fortunately, in an ABC TV special, John Stossel brought the top graph directly down over the lower and found that the rise in CO2 consistently lagged the rise in temperature. So if there were a causal relationship here, it would be that change in temperature causes a similar change in CO2. I guess that's what Al was trying to hide with his clever slight of hand. Incidently, the chart goes back several thousand years. If I'm not mistaken, that was before the discovery of fossil fuel. I wonder what made the CO2 go up and down so dramatically then.

[@J4Zonian]

@fo What I wonder is how people can be so absurdly stupid, or pretend to be, paying any attention to a mercenary ideological toadstool like Stossel, or TVMOB, or any of the other psychopatholes who have used this same trick over the last 20 or 30 years. They’re the ones with the constant, varied sleights created by the insane right wing’s science denial & disinformation industry. Sane people should read the science.

[@Ulyssestnt]

I can set your mind at ease somewhat having been privy to things being said in finance near to the halls of power. Few takes very seriously the notion of ever stopping to burn hydrocarbons and many think wind and solar replacing electricity generation is window dressing to play to the environmental lobby. I have to admit, considering how inefficient wind/solar is and how much the whole thing is simply outsourcing the burning of hydrocarbons elsewhere and even adding to emissions a lot of places,this viewpoint is a logical one. It made me into a staunch nuclear maximalist even if that too still includes burning hydrocarbons but every serious scenario includes burning hydrocarbons,the mining alone would ensure this in any renewables scheme. There are ways we can lower the carbon content of petroleum products and there are ways to make burning processes more efficient..but not as much funding is going this way. For example,a thing we could do to reduce carbon emissions vastly is getting the west to subsidize LNG exports to India,this would provide incentives to not industrialize on coal like done today.

[@bartroberts1514]

Another error of AIT: focus on sea level rise, when what's critical to coastal infrastructure and communities is storm surge rise, which is happening faster and more severely by far.

[@jaykanta4326]

Yes, storm surges are exponentially increased by sea level rise.

[@klausgartenstiel4586]

i was there. it was either this film or no film. humans were really stupid back then. they still are.

[@KingCobbones]

5:04 Simon states that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. This is inaccurate, because floating ice displaces its own weight once it melts, which means that it won't affect sea level. This can easily be demonstrated by filling a glass of water to the brim, with ice floating in it. Once the ice melts, the water level does not spill over the top of the glass, rather it stays at the same level. Land-based ice melting, and running into the oceans, however, will raise sea level. BTW: Ice and water can be at the same temperature.

[@jeremydas723]

If the floating ice is massive enough then gravitational attraction between it and the sea will raise the local sea level significantly. Consequently you cannot use Archimedes principle to argue that the ice melting won't result in a sea level rise somewhere.

[@iancoleman5555]

Update "...no scientist is seriously expecting to see sea level rise of multiple metres this century" is no longer true as of Feb '24, NOAA: "Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 - 5 feet (0.5 - 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 - 7 feet (1.1 - 2.1 meters) by the end of this century."

[@dormikdelron]

The editing, guest scientists are all amazing. Framing the video around the 9 problems that the UK investigation had + 1 more was really compelling and inspired. Look forward to seeing more!

[@1960DaveS]

The big real issue is at this time we do not have the ability to remove large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is lag in emissions (currently at 422 ppm from 280 ppm CO2). So as we reach 1.5 C over preindustrial within the next 3 years massive melting is guaranteed. We may have reached enough lag with positive feedback that Greenland melting over a century or two may be guaranteed. 2 meters of sea level by 2070 WILL happen and reduction of our food supply WILL happen resulting in large scale starvation (not millions but hundreds of millions). These effects are no longer avoidable.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

At current costs offsetting CO2 with capture would cost ~$2 trillion per year. Increase that to $3 trillion per year and we will be moving back to 300ppm. 2-3% of global GDP per year to save the world is perfectly achievable technologically. Still won't happen.

[@1960DaveS]

@@Crispr_CAS9 I agree it won't happen. I am aware we can scub the atmosphere but I was unware of the cost (thank you). I'd be happy if we just slowed emissions but we keep increasing. Very scary stuff.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Crispr_CAS9 Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering on farm fields, the cost would be only about 10% of your estimate, and the profits from harvest of wood and crops would more than offset the investment. If you mean using those uneconomical methods involving factories? Yeah. Those are impossible and wrong, economically and pragmatically.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@bartroberts1514 "Actually, with tree planting and harvest, and basalt fines weathering" Trees and basalt are substantially more expensive than the methods I'm citing. Tree planting is especially bad, with organizations promoting it usually citing removal rates >10x higher than actual observations.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Crispr_CAS9 Intriguing claims. Cite? I mean, the carbon per ton of lumber is a pretty well-known number, and pyrolysis converts 70% of that to inert biochar, while the rest becomes biofuel displacing fossil, and all at a profit. Basalt fines act as soil amendment -- as does biochar -- to create higher crop yields, and is essentially free byproduct of making basalt fiber to displace steel in rebar and fiberglass in structural materials, so is also done at a profit. So I don't see how you believe your numbers work.

[@erikvynckier4819]

No: Greenland is not melting (right now), nor are islands disappearing, nor are ice bears drowning: ice bears live in the water, where they hunt for food.

[@J4Zonian]

@er Actually, overwhelming science says those are all happening. And they’re called polar bears, Ursus maritimus.

[@Madonnalitta1]

​@J4Zonian yeah, because people named them. They were not named by some ethereal mandate.

[@jeremiahmauricio5377]

I appreciate your perspective and arguments even if I disagree. 1. There is no evidence that CO2 will cause runaway heating which seems to be the most common extreme position of climate activists. Large-scale multivariate systems with no overwhelming and dominating factor ever cause a runaway state, and that is what we see with Climate. According to prehistoric climate data, we know that CO2 was two orders of magnitude higher, and yet the Earth still cooled and life existed. 2. Climate models don't account for solar variation, cloud cover, or the infinite heat sink of space. These three factors are major contributors to climate and without accounting for them we can never expect climate models to be accurate.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

It's easy to go back 23 years and Judge Al Gore's movie but the fact of the matter is things are far more critical now than he even suggested back then the science and the data are clear that we're heading for a +3.5C world by 2100 - and it will continue to rise after that time. However our responsibility to the people who will suffer after 2100 does not end

[@happytwolaffs6454]

I'm sure your father is proud of what you have done. condolences.

[@nicholasmills6489]

I’m all for sustainability and environmentalism, but I’m against the co2 alarmism. I have a number of concerns that have adjusted the temp data. I agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and I agree that humans have put co2 in the atmosphere. In one of your previous video you state emissions from burning oil etc was co2 and other noxious gases. But that these other noxious gases had a cooling effect on temperature. The noxious gases also created a smog blanket over cities which lead to cooling over cities. So technology was developed to remove this noxious gases. Catalytic converters, conversion to gas from coal etc. this all lead to noxious pollution being removed from the skies. No more huge industrial chimneys or billion cars pumping noxious gas into the atmosphere. Absolutely agree this was the right thing to especially from a health perspective. Now here is my problem. This technology removed the coolant gases but not the heating gas from exhaust. Consequently our skies have been cleaned of the coolant gases that supposedly masked the co2 warming. Consequently our skies have significantly reduced coolant and smog blanket and an increase in co2. We now see especially from the 1980’s a global temp rise particularly over the skies of cleaner air cities. The temp measures are simply a measure of cleaner skies with less coolant and more co2. What worries me is that scientists knew this is what would happen with the removal of the coolants. They’ve allowed the temp to increase. What we must also remember us that when we burnt timber for fuel we also put ash into the atmosphere. Ever been near a fire, it’s toxic to breathe, and we’ve cleaned our skies of those toxins too. Is the rising temp a consequence not if co2 but cleaner pollution free skies and the albedo of our urban centres.

[@zaarkeru3391]

The "alarmism" is factual though... The cooling effect of those aerosols are nothing compared to the heating effect of CO2 and other gases from oil combustion... We know what is causing the heating, its mostly CO2 and other industrial green house gases...

[@xyincognito]

I wrote my final thesis in English Linguistics how the Kyoto conference was handled in US and UK newsprint - which means it included an analysis of how Gore was quoted and how it is embedded in the US climate change discourse of the time. And, what you said in the end about the "10th" error is very much align with what I found about the kind of Language in the US newsprint when talking about climate change and the international climate policy

[@j.d.waterhouse4197]

The premise of the movie, that man's CO2 and Methane are the CAUSE of global warming is as true today as it was then. The attempts to insinuate otherwise by creating STRAWMAN arguments from things said by non-scientists are sickening and anti-science.

[@grip2617]

Very interesting the linguistic approach!!!!

[@j.d.waterhouse4197]

It's unfortunate Gore and others made statements which were not facts shared by actual climate researchers, but simply layman guesses. The anti science right picked up on these and used them as red herring arguments. No climate scientist EVER made any sort of definitive statement like 'NYC would be underwater' by such and such a date. What they DID say is man's CO2 IS warming the planet, that it would be eventually catastrophic to species.

[@J4Zonian]

@xy aligned

[@Earwaxfire909]

I always point out that Svante Arrhenius wrote about the theory of CO2 global warming in 1896: "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Look up this paper and it will give you an idea of the basic mechanism, which has been expanded upon for more than a century.

[@billbogg3857]

Yes but it was disproved by Angstrom in around 1906

[@jaykanta4326]

@@billbogg3857 That' is a complete and very stupid lie.

[@Earwaxfire909]

@@billbogg3857 SAs theory was correct but his estimate of the degree of heating was incorrect due to a miss-estimated factor. Angstrom (paper 1901) was misled. He based his ideas on a mistake made by his assistant, and his paper was proven wrong. SA published a series of notes (1901-1908) with a revised lower heating factor that was more correct. And the complexities of atmospheric science were only just beginning to be understood.

[@billbogg3857]

Arrhenius c1896 established a link betweeen CO2 and temperature. Increased CO2 appeared to mean a linear increase in temperature. However in 1900 Angstrom redid Arrhenius's lab experiment. He found that decreasing the amount of CO2 did not result in a fall in temperature. He concluded that at some point CO2 reached a saturation point and no further increase in temperature was possible. This has never been disproved and no further laboratory experiment has been able to prove otherwise. Arrhenius's original conclusions were wrong.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@billbogg3857 You just keep blathering the same nonsense with no scientific evidence.

[@2adamast]

There is a classic error at 5:00 that may be present in the Gore presentation. Melting (floating) sea ice causes a sea level rise. According to Archimedes it doesn’t.

[@bartroberts1514]

FFS. That's NOT what Gore said. Melting sea ice reduces albedo, leading to faster warming which leads to thermal expansion of seawater, which is over half of all sea level rise. Melting land ice in the Arctic and elsewhere leads to more mass of seawater, which is almost half of all sea level rise.

[@AlRoderick]

That's not what's being demonstrated in that example. That's part of a longer clip, ice that's floating in water doesn't make the water level rise and they say that in the film but iced that stacks all the way to the sea floor (in that animation, the stack of ice cubes goes all the way to the bottom of the glass) or is otherwise sitting on land does because it's adding new water to the system.

[@2adamast]

@@AlRoderick what’s being said here is :”Greenland is melting, arctic sea ice is melting … and both are contributing to the sea level rise” But thank you to mention “sea ice that is on land”

[@TheHunterGracchus]

@@2adamast That's a good point. Of course, the melting of polar sea ice does contribute to sea level rise, but only indirectly, by lowering the ocean's albedo, creating positive feedback. Without stating that carefully, it sounds as if the contribution is direct, as it is for continental ice sheets. Even land ice contributes to sea level rise more indirectly than people usually think, since the gravitational effect on ocean water means that different coastlines will have different rises in sea level as the Greenland ice sheet melts.

[@2adamast]

@@TheHunterGracchus Does it create positive feedback? The arctic ocean has a very low sun, thus a lot of reflection (50% at 20°), while it has a water surface that can freely radiate between 48° to 90°. Could be alike a permanent sunrise without any clouds cooling

[@christophercharles3169]

"Greenland’s ice sheet began forming 2.5 million years ago and today has about 2.8 million gigatons of ice, in some places more than three kilometers thick. Assuming the ice sheet continues to lose mass at its current rate, all of Greenland will be barren and without snow in just 1.1 million years. I wonder if Al Gore plans to wait." David Siegel Adaptation is our best option as it always has been. Without fossil fuel and nuclear power generation many will die and guess who those people will be.

[@3ntr0p3t3]

Sure, we could spend billions on adaptation while burning more fossil fuel, then spend billions more to adapt to an even warmer planet while burning more fossil fuel, then spend billions more… you get the picture. Or we could spend billions on renewables and stop burning fossil fuel, but many will lose money and guess who those people will be.

[@sammy2tires320]

👏👏👏

[@J4Zonian]

@chri "Greenland Melting Even Faster Than Feared” "The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming-it's too late for there to be no effect.” "We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point," warned lead author Michael Bevis, a geodynamics professor at Ohio State University. "We're going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future." Common Dreams, January 22, 2019 STUDY: Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming Nature Greenland’s ice sheet’s melt will become irreversible at 1.6°C above preindustrial temperature, which is now unavoidable and will likely happen within 8-10 years. Greenland melting faster-unforeseen positive feedback in soft dirt under ice This is Not Cool, Oct. 1. 2014 Earth has lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice in less than 30 years ‘Stunned’ scientists say there is little doubt global heating is to blame for the loss. The Guardian, August 23, 2020 Rain Fell On Greenland Ice Cap For 1st Time In Recorded History Last Week …that hasn’t happened in over 12,000 years. Cleantechnica, August 8, 2021 Scientists at Leeds and Edinburgh universities and University College London…describe the level of ice loss as “staggering” and warn that their analysis indicates that sea level rises, triggered by melting glaciers and ice sheets, could reach a metre by the end of the century. "Shocking," "absolutely astonishing," and "remarkable." That's how climate scientists are describing the recent unusually warm temperatures in the Arctic. (2018) That was 2018. 2023 was the hottest year, globally, in recorded history, & the hottest year in 125,000 years. 2024 is likely to be hotter. Climate change: Greenland's ice faces melting 'death sentence’ BBC, 3 September 2019 "Greenland's Ice Melt Is in 'Overdrive,' With No Sign of Slowing" Inside Climate News, Dec. 5, 2018 James Balog and Extreme Ice Video Compilation This is Not Cool, April 2, 2015 "The volume loss in Greenland has doubled since the [year 2000]," explained AWI glaciologist and co-author of the report Prof. Dr. Angelika Humbert. "The loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has in the same time span increased by a factor of three. Combined the two ice sheets are thinning at a rate of 500 cubic kilometres per year. That is the highest speed observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago.” There will be no adapting to conditions caused by climate catastrophe unless we radically change direction now. Daily temperatures of 170° in much of the world, just for 1 of many examples.

[@christophercharles3169]

@@J4Zonian I guess we'll just have to go back to farming in Greenland. In other words, we've been there before. You should quit parroting statements that are unproven and not based on solid science.

[@J4Zonian]

​@@christophercharles3169 You should quit parroting statements that are unproven and not based on solid science. You should quit lying. Obviously every one of my citations either was science or referred to & reported on science. You don’t know that because, not having any interest in science, fact, or reality, you didn’t bother to find & read them. So you’re not trying to reach or communicate the truth, (wudda suprize!) you’re just posting comments to aid the nihilistic psychopaths trying to destroy civilization & nature. Is that a job, a hobby, or are you a bot? chri: "Assuming the ice sheet continues to lose mass at its current rate...” But that assumption is obviously false. Global heat is increasing at an accelerating rate, as are global ice melt & SLR. Overwhelming science shows all 3 of those are true, & the far right’s psychotic delusions & malignant narcissism don’t change that. The estimate of 1.1 million years may have been what some people thought 15 years ago, but science has advanced, exclusively in the direction of realizing climate catastrophe is happening faster & is more dire than anyone thought, even that 15 years ago. Current estimates are hundreds of years for a complete melt, but disastrous effects of sea level rise caused by Greenland, Antarctic, & glacial ice melt & thermal expansion of seawater are happening already & intensifying at an accelerating rate. By the time we reach 3°C over preindustrial temperature & then blow past it on the way to 5 or 6°-as we will, based on current policies & actions-those effects will be utterly catastrophic. Seek psychotherapy. Skeptical Science arcticles: "Greenland used to be green” "Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?"

[@miriammcfarlane6972]

While KZbin may not encourage this, thank you for your thoughtful, careful, nuanced content! 😊

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Why are rising sea levels a problem? They would cover all the corrupt major cities of the world. Clearly a positive outcome.*

[@seanLee-sk2mi]

Those are not Errors, they are lies.

[@Rick-yk5qb]

@@seanLee-sk2mi Yup, all commie lies.

[@J4Zonian]

@@seanLee-sk2mi Nope. Obviously not.

[@Ornitholestes1]

"the real problem we have is; we only have one planet" pretty much sums up the entire situation nicely

[@m.caeben2578]

True, though the nature of that statement is on the statistical challenge to attribute natural events to cc.

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@m.caeben2578 Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that. The multiple applications are precisely why I liked that quote

[@theeraphatsunthornwit6266]

Common trick. Your father has one life. Buy this snake oil for 200 dollars. It may or may not cure your father, ....//in invisible print//:: but will certainly enrich me. 😉

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 who says my father has one life? What if I strongly believe he has several? Maybe that will make it so. And what snake are we talking about?

[@Wol747]

I was always a trifle leery about Al Gore’s film if only because he’s a politician. It’s the same with celebrities, film stars and the rest - it’s probably resentment at being talked down to by people who aren’t themselves experts. Nice video, Simon. But I am also a little cautious about your apparent - to the complete layperson ( see - nothing sexist here…) - reduction in the dangers by bringing in the geological timescales involved. My understanding is that the RATE of GG emissions is important, but it’s the TOTAL amount of carbon that is more relevant due to the geological timescales that it remains in the atmosphere before natural sequestration pulls it out of the equation: every kilogram just adds to the problem and increases the positive feedbacks. And in that respect of course the RATE of using up the carbon budget does matter since every addition makes the long term problem worse. My own - limited - meteorological and climatology education was well over half a century ago and was fairly superficial: I can still look at my tephigrams and remember how they work but that’s about it, but it does give an understanding of just how complex are the sciences involved and how each acknowledgement of the inaccuracies and gaps are leaped upon in the echochamber of ignorance to “prove” how the man at the other end of the saloon bar “knows better than these jumped-up experts.”

[@Rick-yk5qb]

CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth. The hypothesis is false.

[@stevechilders2624]

And maybe we could speak about what a pointless exercise recycling plastic is when only 5% of it gets reused, and the rest goes in the landfill or into the ocean. That’s a far more important question than global warming.

[@michaelstephens360]

I’m trying to find out how to buy property in Antarctica for when the ice melts and the land becomes fertile in a few years. I want to be ahead of the next pioneer movement.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Frankly, a platform without an algorithm is worse at communication, period. That is one of the main reasons I repeatedly bounced off Nebula. Remember that an algorithm doesn't need to have the aim to increase platform ad revenue, it can be optimized for any goal you want - but one of the more important aspects of it is finding videos one may want to watch but may not know about. Without that, finding content is a lot harder. It's a case of "OK, I watched the two videos I knew about ... so what's next?" And back to KZbin I go. It's not the only problem I find with Nebula - at least the last time I looked (which is a while ago), I seem to recall being unable to find anything to keep track of what I already watched, for example. You'll notice that all of these are usability features. Those are very relevant to viewers. Creators tend to only notice them indirectly. Maybe that's the real problem. I find this very frustrating. KZbin has many problems, most of which, especially the more severe ones, are based around KZbin being mainly in the business of selling ads. I'd love something better. But none of the alternatives I've seen manages to be that better thing.

[@AlRoderick]

That is kind of the flaw, Nebula is for people to follow the people they found on KZbin without having to block the ads. It fundamentally doesn't work without KZbin as the path by which people discover people to follow.

[@catocall7323]

The other key word he mentioned is "curated". Who does the curating? How knowledgeable are these curators about the subject matters they are curating? How careful are they to avoid curating according to their personal biases?

[@mralekito]

Jason Box, who has studied Greenland for decades, has said ‘it hasn’t really sunk in, not even in the science community is that we’ve effectively lost the ice sheets. It’s only a matter of time before we see many meters of sea level rise”. By the end of this century we’ll probably get around a meter. Should we not all start to think on a long term basis, beyond our lifetimes? There will be people alive in the future who could see couple of meters in their lifetime. Catastrophic would be an understatement for those people.

[@caine7024]

tech will save us, we'll be so advanced by then relax bro

[@KitagumaIgen]

@@caine7024 That's very naive.

[@smile768]

Show me some tide guage readings that support this trend. I haven't seen any evidence for this. You can 'prove' a significant acceleration in sea level rise only if you change your data collection method part the way through the graph. Eg start the graph with tide guages and then fraudulently replace recent data with satellite data, thereby showing an apparent increase rate.

[@ellengran6814]

​@@caine7024 When we humans created one of our first cities, it was done due to innovation, new tech. Someone made a great irrigation system and the City of Ur. Years later the irrigation system had caused saltification of the soil = no food , social unrest and eventually the destruction of the society.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@caine7024 You're right. This tech will save us, if we use it: To avoid increased famine, farm failure, fire-promoting weather, and flooding: 1. Curtail fossil (carbon from the ground in the form of coal, hydrocarbons and limestone) each month by a fraction of the total being extracted down to zero by 2030. 2. Reducing methane emissions of all kinds, especially from fossil, replacing fossil extracts with biomethane and harvesting wood before it decays. 3. As soon as alternatives to fossil-based energy generation, transportation and manufacture are available and economical we must replace all the fossil we can with them and shut down the fossil-based activities. 4. Drawdown CO2 from the atmosphere by the only two legitimate, economical methods available: photosynthesis and weathering of basalt fines. 5. Increase conservation of wildlife, especially aquatic life mainly by reducing ship traffic 40%. 6. Increase energy efficiency 8% year over year. 7. Individual tech in no nation accounts for more than 25% of fossil emissions; tech used by business, institutions and governments are responsible for essentially all climate change famine, farm failure, fire-promoting weather and flooding.

[@user-ml4wm7ut5t]

I think this video further illustrates how difficult it is to accurately capture something of tremendous complexity and nuance and then convey it in a manor for the masses.

[@andrewb2548]

Gotta agree. The heavy equipment required to convey manors is dauntingly expensive.

[@Rick-yk5qb]

It's an easily debunked hypothesis.

[@Rick-yk5qb]

It's pretty simple really. CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the Earth is historically cold right now, not historically hot. So the hypothesis is based on 2 lies, so it's false. Here's the data to prove my claims. Search : "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images."

[@jokerman0000]

​@andrewb2548 I was taught from a young age to mind my manors so I can concur the conveyance is a tremendously complex process

[@vrager1564]

1Computer modelling is always prone to "garbage in, garbage out". We've seen modelling in epidemics being garbage, and a lot of climate alarmism is based projections made from flawed models, so is unreliable. Events prove assertions made 20-40 years ago that we were going to be doomed by 2000, by 2020 - and we're not doomed!

[@johngage5391]

It's a pity Gore didn't have Dr James Hansen on at the end to talk about solutions. Hansen's book "Storms of My Grandchildren" and his Ted talk from around the same time both discussed the need for and co-benefits of federal legislation of Carbon Fee and Dividend. Citizens Climate Lobby is now trying to make that possible as a bipartisan bill in the US, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Canada has already done it.

[@bartroberts1514]

Admirable though Hansen's position and work have been, they -- like Canada's Carbon Dividend Act -- fall far short of real solutions. Perhaps if we'd done as Hansen suggests in 1965 when Revelle's report came out, it might have been enough. Now? The actions will need to be: 1) curtailing fossil extraction 2% per month down to zero by 2030, 2) avoiding methane emission as much as possible, 3) replacing fossil-emitting activities with fossil-free alternatives and shutting down the fossil activities when replaces instead of letting them go on, 4) drawing down CO2 from air equivalent to planting 60 trillion new trees by 2060, 5) wildlife conservation equivalent to slowing ship traffic 40% at sea and similar levels on land, and 6) increasing energy efficiency at least 8% year over year.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

More people in Florida (who were legally eligible to vote) cast ballots that they intended to be votes for Gore than for Bush. But there was a badly designed ballot, with a line from Gore's name to the spot to mark the ballot for Pat Buchanan. It was fairly clear which was the correct spot, but it was confusing enough that a reasonable person would have about a 2% chance of getting it wrong -- and about 2% of voters who used that ballot did. The election was so close that those were enough to make the difference between an unambiguous win for Gore, and close enough to a tie that other kinds of issues could turn the count to either candidate. Then the partisan Florida secretary of state and the partisan SCOTUS shoved through a decision in favor of Bush instead of an honest effort to count the votes as accurately as possible by the somewhat-unclear standards of Florida law. In a nutshell, it was a mess, where Gore won the election but Bush won the mess.

[@thepyrrhonist6152]

funny, I consistently hear that we have the fairest and most accurate elections ever. In fact, it is our duty to never dispute this. Man, things must have been different back then, huh.

[@josepheccles9341]

The tiny period of time we have studied climate is not enough to make any long term prediction. The climate has and will always will change. There has been many changes in the history of earth.

[@marktregear5776]

You have enormous confidence that sceptics are either ignorant or malicious. When you notice the deliberate exaggerations and sometimes actual misinformation of your own side, does that ever give you cause for doubt?

[@buellzz]

Did you watch the video? It seems like you didn't watch the video.

[@marktregear5776]

Yes, most of it@@buellzz

[@rogerthornton8064]

@@buellzz I did watch and I must agree with the initial comment. Gore's premise is based on an incomplete truth. Water makes up over 90% of green house gas heat absorption. Are we going to make clouds illegal next?

[@Flameboar]

@@buellzz I did watch the video. Simon was rather balanced until the end when he castigated those who question the "consensus". You are no doubt familiar with Mann & Hughes' "Hockey Stick". Are you aware that Mann used cores from 4 bristlecone pine trees to make the shaft of his graph straight? Those were the only cores out of tens of thousands which let him claim that the Medieval Warm Period did not exist on a global scale. Mann did his very best to hide his data for years before he was forced to reveal it. In spite of this, Mann's "Hockey Stick" still is used as an indication of climate catastrophe. I admit that some on the non-consensus side over due things. Simon is correct in that. I would also point out that the scientific method does not include consensus. Hypotheses are proven and disproven by new facts. To allow that to happen, any hypothesis may be questioned. Therefore it is not appropriate to label all questions as denial. If this were true since the time of Copernicus, we might still be taught that the sun circles the earth.

[@mrunning10]

YOU have NEVER looked at ANY of the fucking DATA or the fucking ANALYSIS, so why do you give an opinion based upon fucking IGNORANCE?

[@laMoria]

in my lab, the local german television came to record a documentary. They wanted catchy videos, so the professor just outright made up interpretations on a blank sample because they redid it 50 times :')

[@euler4273]

I disagree with your comment about our response to climate change having been weakened because of An Inconvenient Truth. I think it has contributed significantly to the public awareness of climate change. I think we would be in a worse position nowadays if An Inconvenient Truth had never been made.

[@ecomquest]

You are right.

[@arnoldfrackenmeyer8157]

Around 5:10 to 5:15 This guy made a HUGE scientific error citing BOTH melting sea ice and land ice contributes to sea level rise. Incorrect. Only melting land ice could contribute to sea level rise. Melting sea ice will not change the water level.

[@erikvynckier4819]

Nope: sea levels are not rising. Not right now. There is erosion of land, which is something different.

[@J4Zonian]

@er NOAA, NASA, IPCC, CSIO, other organizations, 99.9% of scientists & peer-reviewed papers disagree. But you know better. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one. To claim what you're claiming, you also have to claim that all climate scientists & most other scientists for 1 1/2 centuries have either been unbelievably stupid or completely corrupt, & so terrifying that unlike the Mafia, Stasi, KGB, Savak, US military, Masons, Skull and Bones, and professional magicians, not one word has ever leaked about this vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. Tool.

[@onarandomnote25]

Great work and all, but can I just say one detail I think is important and was missed... is that Dr Simon has a WH40K box in his library and I think that's awesome.

[@tomvandongen8075]

He has an Ork army in Hawaiian shirts

[@SimonClark]

Check out "Simon Clark Errata" for my painting content!

[@danielbob2628]

​@tomvandongen8075 Oh phew, a respectable army! I was afraid I would have to stop believing in climate change!

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

Incorrect, sea level ice melt does not increase sea level rise. Only land-based ice melt increases sea level rise. Increase heating of the oceans, which is happening in a remarkable pace, does increase sea level rise because warmer water expands.

[@rogerdiogo6893]

Our host star goes thru a 400 year old cycle, as NASA just found out.

[@AdeebaZamaan]

Regarding the definition of climate change provided by KZbin at the top of the description: what are we supposed to call climate change caused by forces other than humans? If we aren't supposed to assume that ALL climate change is caused by humans -- and such an assumption is egregiously hubristic -- then WHAT ARE WE DOING TO LANGUAGE?

[@tauIrrydah]

What you're really saying: Give the fossil fuel industry a millimeter of discrepancy in your scientific rigour and they'll bog down climate negotiations for a century until its 4 degrees of warming not 1.5 and too late for any of us.

[@tauIrrydah]

I was wrong... it was 50 years and we're going to get 4 degrees of warming anyway -_-

[@BadassRaiden]

Personally I have a problem with the critique of how urgency is articulated with regards to the climate crisis. Undeniably we are facing catastrophic effects right now as we all agree. Now we might not see multiple meters of sea level rise this century, unless things deteriorate at an exponentially accelerated rate - but I don't think that makes it any less urgent. I haven't seen the film in a while so perhaps it's the specific kind of language he uses to articulate urgency that is the problem - but I don't think talking about sea level rise to the degree of multiple meters is any less urgent than if it was actually happening right now, and I'll tell you why. We as a society only think about urgency as it pertains to the immediate, I mean, that is what the word means. We are not mentally equipped to project any kind of urgency into the future in much the same way as we are not equipped to really comprehend the scale of a billion or a trillion of something. This is the problem. It might not be urgent for *US* in our lifetimes, but it will be and *IS* urgent for future generations. Every moment we don't do something now, makes it worse for future generations and indeed leads to it happening to them sooner and sooner. These are future human beings that will suffer more than anyone alive today can even fathom. It shouldn't matter if these future generations won't feel the absolute worst it can be until 100 or 200 years from now. We need to act like they matter right now. We need to act like their future already exists - because it *does* already exist. If we make no further changes than what has already been made - the future they will experience has been essentially set in stone. If it is set in stone right now, than we need to act like they matter, *right now*. Furthermore, I don't think any critique of the rhetoric around urgency is really relevant. I mean all it does is make people become more skeptical of the validity of the science because communicators are speaking in unrealistic time-frames. That skepticism can be completely circumvented, if we simply stop speaking in time-frames altogether. Who gives a shit if it's going to happen tomorrow, or in 20 years, or in 200 years? To the generations of the future, for them it *WILL* actually happen tomorrow and by that point it will be literally impossible for them to do anything about it, so it's up to us. The message should be it doesn't matter if sea level won't rise by multiple meters in the next 50-75 years. The point is if we do nothing it *WILL* happen. Period. And the longer we do nothing, the sooner and sooner it happens to future generations where they won't be equipped to do anything about it, and all they will be able to do is look back on their ancestors and wonder why we did nothing. We have to learn to project compassion into the future, far into the future AND we have to eradicate capitalism. We won't even be able to brace ourselves to adapt and endure, let alone avert the worst of the crisis, so long as capitalism exists in the world. Money is quite literally the *ONLY* thing hindering any action being taken.

[@svensvensson8102]

The polarbear population is at its highest since atleast 1960.

[@danjohnson6800]

part 2: k) Traffic control is a major place where conservation can have serious impact. About 50% of the fuel used in going from point A to B is due to having to stop at lights. I once took an ordinary Kia Forte with its fuel mileage meter and drove for 25 miles on the freeway. Then drove in-town. On the freeway I could get 50 mpg by clever driving, which quickly dropped to 25 mpg while driving in-town. Clever driving means roughly constant speed, and in-town was easy driving--no jack rabbiting. I remembered from my dad's high school physics book that the optimal driving speed is about 45 mph. In multiple test runs on the freeway I found that to be not much different today. The optimum I found was about 50. That's just a standard automatic transmission 2 liter 4 cylinder gas engine on an inexpensive car. L) I have seen innumerable places in my multi-city area where traffic timing is really terrible, causing many many stops along a 5 mile stretch of road. Because almost no traffic sensing is being utilized, and timing only determines the flow, a great deal of waste is built into the system. I remember when we had the bond proposal to put computer controlled traffic lights in across Dallas. Great! Except that from then on there has never been the money to put into the monitoring of traffic flow and the computer programming to put in advanced demand-optimized traffic control programming. If we had that, then the layer to optimize probable fuel consumption could be added. Make these a national priority. M) we are all in this together, so subdivide the problem among nations, among states, among cities, to pioneer and refine these and all specific areas. Share the results across the world. Allow industry to make money off it buy creating and selling these products. Make these products free of tariffs and taxes, to accelerate the uptake in the communities. M) the biggest challenge we have is the fossil fuels and energy generation industries. There are wells, rigs, power plants that have cost billions each, that are borrowed for and are scheduled to take 40 years to pay back. Those industries, and the financial communities certainly don't want to be told "you can't anymore". And they shouldn't be told. They should be asked "what can we do to make this transition, what do you need, and what time frame can be accomplished?" We will have to offer incentives clearly. Why aren't we doing that already? Here in Texas we now have something like 20% of our electricity generated by wind and solar, and that has grown up quickly, so I'm pretty sure there are federal programs already doing it, but it needs to be ramped up to war-level efforts, and publicized. N) it's particularly difficult because there are a large number of people, of families, that are getting a monthly check from small wells that the big players don't want to mess with anymore. Those investors don't like to have their income stream yanked away by shutting down their wells, nor can they afford the upkeep to keep from emitting excess hydrocarbons and methane. The right thing to do there is substitute a share in a solar farm for the well, take ownership of the well, and shut it down on a sensible best schedule. Make ownership in solar and wind farms just as available as wells, democratize the cost, investment, and benefits of renewables so they compete in every way with fossil fuels. No reason a solar farm can't generate profit just like a well does. (If there is a better system for all that, now is the time to introduce it, experiment with it, prove it out, and roll it out world wide.) O) we need oil and gas for plastics and night time production. With war-level effort we can find ways to reduce our needs when the sun ain't. P) we can find electronics technologies, or other technologies that can interface to electronics, that consume far less energy. Many are being investigated. We could use a moonshot for this as well. Q) we can find battery technologies that allow us to capture energy generated when renewables when they are available and store them to use at night, e.g. many of those are under way, but there could be a moon shot for this as well. All the moonshots should be open to the public, to the small inventor, to the amateur scientist. Not every useful thought comes from professionals. Many people feel shut out of useful contribution, and are done so with paywalls, secrecy of inventions. Nothing is as powerful as creativity! These need to be public domain, which will require a public payment to keep the professionals working on it. If there is only one major advance made by nonprofessionals, it will pay for itself. I predict there will be a great many. All we need is one mathematical breakthrough for example, coming in from left field likely, ... Make a big deal about those who contribute. A system of awards with financial elements. Give people something to aspire to. They are making something that will benefit all mankind for generations; it is a big deal and it should be celebrated! Now you have an outline to produce a blueprint to create a plan to create policy. Make it so! "As our circumstance is new, so must we think anew".

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Individuals who can be wrong but there is no consequence to their individual actions can safely say anything. In the USA their actions through laws can have a massive impact on the planet. So, we can have millions of active and critical opinions and no individual responsibility.

[@v2joecr]

Ice floating in water displaces the same amount of water as liquid water. Thus, whenever the arctic sea ice melts it has no significant impact on sea level. If you take a glass of ice water & measure the water level before the ice melts & after it melts it should be the same (If you are in an arid environment some of the water will evaporate more so than if you were in a humid environment as well as your elevation may impact that as well.). Now ice on dry land that melts if it makes it to the oceans can cause the levels in the ocean to rise. Also, you forgot to point out that the hockey stick was found to be based on a lie that tree ring data is a good substitute for a lack of actual temperature data. If you compared the two further than he did in that film you will find that the correlation stops matching up. Tree ring growth is based on more than just the temperature. The film & your video both ignore the fact that the output from the sun varies based on a cycle which impacts how much energy is available to cause any changes in weather. Another related factor is that the Earth's tilt off the plane it orbits on varies over time which can also change summer & winter times along with other complicated variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. I think you & Al Gore both oversimplified the model as well as using bad data for the inputs. You might want to read "An Inconvenient Book" as it points out several possible issues with the movie that you missed. IIRC it also listed sources. It has been too long since the one time I streamed that movie on Netflix to remember if Al Gore did or didn't include any sources for where his data came from.

[@andylitespeed]

The big elephant in the room that shows most reporting of AGW is simply wrong is the reporting on heat waves leading to negative outcomes (deaths). While it is true that heat waves lead to increased deaths, warming leads to far fewer deaths from the cold. Cold kills many times more people than heat. In other words, a warming world leaves us better off in this regard.

[@jiminverness]

...and yet the hurricane on the cover of An Inconvenient Truth depicts a hurricane spinning clockwise...

[@fromnorway643]

Maybe it was in the southern hemisphere?

[@jiminverness]

@@fromnorway643 Doubtful. In the South Atlantic they almost never happen, and in the South Pacific the only noteworthy places that get hit are Australia and occasionally Southern Africa. So, given the intended primary audience living in the Northern Hemisphere, I'd reckon it exceedingly unlikely.

[@fromnorway643]

@@jiminverness So, it was most likely an error?

[@karinturkington2455]

Thank you for this. Very interesting and informative.

[@davyhotch]

Revisiting older documentaries is really helpful for context. Are there any similar videos for the Michael Moore renewables film that a lot of greens I know found misrepresentative?

[@bartroberts1514]

Wouldn't it be great, though, if Dr. Clark revisited the errors in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by UK Communist Party co-founder Martin Durkin? Or the errors in the statements of the UK taxpayer funded coal-industry driven GWPF? The errors in the Idsos' "CO2 Science" websites? The errors in WUWT? The errors in Climate Audit? The errors in Warwick Hughes' claims that sparked what became Climategate? I mean, Ayn Rand was wrong and Einstein right. Why belabor the wrong views of the Ayn Rands of the world?

[@vernonfrance2974]

@davyhotch That is a great question. I believe that the Michael Moore film has a very pessimistic outlook. I'd like to investigate to learn if there have been substantial improvements in solar, wind, batteries, geothermal, hydrogen and hydroelectric technology since then? I would also like to see the information about biomass's destructivity made well known and this exposed as just as harmful as using filthy fossil fuels. I do think that the Moore film is beneficial in that it brings up the elephant in the room which is the human population currently being beyond the carrying capacity of ecosystems on Earth - especially with regard to the extra energy required for all of the technology we now demand to have at our fingerprints. I believe each woman should have only one child whereby each generation will be halved. However, I am not optimistic that any great headway will be achieved in instituting such a policy. I believe Moore's film shows that although it is going to exact heavy costs, installing individual passive and active energy methodology, more large scale housing, and more underground residency are preferable to huge corporations continuing to supply the brunt of our energy and so much of our arable land being plastered with postage stamp individual housing units. Techniques to save more of our bath and dishwater and capture runoff for agricultural applications are also needed. What do you think?

[@wombatcom]

I love your sentiments about climate deniers and 'clickbait'-ish climate activists. Similar methods employed by both sides, but for different motives and with different ethics; one attempts in aiding and guiding society *due to* science's discoveries and subsequent hypothesises and advice, and the other... well, doesn't. In a culture (especially online) where everything needs to be snappy and scary to get our attention (and to get us to act/shout-out), it may well be a necessary evil to be almost unscientific in our way of 'educating' to mitigate the worst of climate change's effects... but as you said, there's a fine line, because the science speaks for itself too, and surely that should be enough motivation without half-truths! An interesting one for sure. Thank you very much for the video, glad to see you're back, and take care!

[@bartroberts1514]

Ever it was thus. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnyZXpZ7dq-Noqc The medium just makes it faster.

[@vernonfrance2974]

@wombatcom Both the judge and Simon pointed out that the film was mostly true not half true. It pointed out things that will happen if nothing is changed and there has been some sea level rise, temperature rise, and some effect on hurricanes. If we wait longer the reversibility will decline because with the melting of the permafrost more and more methane will be generated and/or will escape. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

[@fortunadora443]

Sea levels are not rising at the rates claimed in Gore’s film. Despite that we need to support technologies and practices that effectively reduce negative enviromental impacts.

[@DelusionalDoug]

in his 2006 global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore predicted that the global sea level could rise as much as 20 feet "in the near future." Since 1880, the global sea level has risen 8-9 inches and, between 1993-2021, the sea level has ticked up 3.8 inches, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At that rate, it would take approximately 1,136 years for the world's sea level to rise 20 feet.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

You don't understand how math works, do you?

[@DelusionalDoug]

3.8 inches increase since 1993 2021 - 1993 = 28 years 3.8 / 28 = 0.136 inches per year = 0.0113 feet per year 20 feet / 0.0113 = 1768 years This is how math works. Is 1768 years in the near future? No it was”disingenuous”

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@DelusionalDoug Here's a hint: There's an exponent involved in this. Because... acceleration. Again, you don't understand how math works, do you?

[@DelusionalDoug]

@@Crispr_CAS9 actually, I’m very good at it. Thanks

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@DelusionalDoug And yet you're flummoxed by exponents. Funny.

[@reallymysterious4520]

Have to take issue with your comment around 4:08 that no climate scientist expects Greenland to melt this century. Paul Beckwith does - he is a very experienced climate scientist and he does very thorough research. I am not a climate scientist but have a well above average working knowledge &understanding of the research. And as such I would tend to agree that Greenland will be done by the end of this century. But I do agree that in 2006 that would not have been anywhere close to as clear as it is now

[@user-vc5zt9ci12]

Im not saying i disagree, but We will be toast if it collapses that fast.

[@williknie9165]

Hey i just wanna say thanks for linking your sources that is some good work !

[@markhutton6055]

Melting sea ice DOES NOT contribute to rising sea level.

[@klopferator]

12:00 It has to be said though that climate tipping points are something many climate scientists are not so sure about, their existence is not yet scientific consensus. That might change in the future, but this is something that is still actively under discussion as there just isn't enough evidence yet to be sure.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

It’s interesting to se the development of a tropical wheat (Brazil) because it holds the promise of greater food security in tropical countries now reliant on imports. It’s claimed to have a 15% protein content, 10% higher over regular wheat. There are still huge problems of water and seasonal weather chaos. If humans cannot survive heat waves, like seen in Asia and are driven out, I don’t know how much wheat can even matter. Also destruction of the water supply throughout Asia carrie’s ramifications to industry, transport and municipal water supply.

[@martiusyamamoto1578]

Brazil here. Yes EMPBRAPA has developed over the past 4 decades strains of wheat that can withstand warmer climes but still, that doesn't mean we've come up with a "tropical" wheat, like we do bananas, coffee, and mangoes. Wheat can only be cultivated in the highlands of southern Brazil where winter is mild and can reach below-freezing temps. However, the weather down south has been so finicky that this year's harvest is being greatly compromised. Not just wheat, but corn, soy, etc. That being said, we´ll have to come to grips with food insecurity worldwide, including in the northern hemisphere. We have actually topped the USA as the greatest producer of food in the world (Wow!) but frankly, things don't look good here and in Argentina as we won't be able to compensate for American, Canadian and EU losses. We're toast sir.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

@@martiusyamamoto1578 I was using its description. Your information is important. It may be the wheat variety can offer options to many countries who all face food security issues. I hope it can, but yes. I cover they worrisome aspects of food security as I have gleaned. The dry conditions up and down the Americas (central US, Central and South) are quite acute. The devastation of extreme weather on crops and farmland this year are quite unsettling and likely common in a warming future.

[@TheSkystrider]

1) I'm on board with the sci consensus of Climate Change 2) I was in school when I watched An Inconvenient Truth 3) At the time I didn't think it was convincingly scientific because it sounded like correlation not causation 4) communicators like Simon and others have become so great at communicating it so I have understood more of how it is scientifically supported.

[@bartroberts1514]

.. and now you'll rally and lobby for immediate useful action by governments to curtail fossil extraction down to zero by 2030, avoid methane emissions, replace fossil with alternatives, drawdown CO2 faster, increase conservation and energy efficiency programs?

[@thebritishbookworm2649]

No there is no consensus. So you have lost the conversation there at number 1.

[@j.s.3297]

An inconvenient truth was actually a science fiction movie...🤣

[@J4Zonian]

@j. Nope. Science fiction is an entire political party so deep in psychosis they deny reality, but the country is so mired in lies & nonsense spewed by that street gang it can’t even summon an opposition party that prefers reality.

[@johanvanzyl8479]

Al's net worth also increased from $ 6 to $ 26m by 2012.

[@rogerogden9236]

The melting of arctic sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as you state at 5:00. The arctic sea ice is already floating, when it melts it displaces exactly the same amount of water as it did in ice form. So, it does not contribute at all to any rise in sea level. I appreciate the overall message of the video, though I think you are giving the climate-change fearmongers much more slack than they deserve. It actually isn't clear what will happen in this century. It may turn out that the fear was mostly unfounded.

[@spookus5430]

That would be a good point, except you aren't co sidering the volume of sea ice that floats above the surface. Also, we've already seen that the claims aren't unfounded

[@rogerogden9236]

@@spookus5430 Come on, dude. Ice is less dense than water and that is why some ice is above the surface when a block of ice is floating. When floating ice melts it displaces that same amount of water as it did when it was in the form of Ice. This is just basic physics. If the ice on land melts, that could make the ocean rise, but the temperature in the Antarctic never gets close to the melting temperature. I don't think Greenland is in much danger of melting now either at this time.

[@sorenkair]

it's nearly impossible to say what effects it might have had on modern discourse. the fact is, sensationalism works, and i doubt its use here is a contributing factor to the Republican modus operandi of taking wedge issues and blowing them far out of proportion.

[@Thetruthhurts708]

At one point the arctic territories of Canada increased the number of polar bears that could be hunted because the population had grown too much. I guess not enough were drowning.

[@granthurlburt4062]

If you actually watch the video, it actually supports Gore's overall points and the seriousness of human-caused climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 & CH4: Quote:12:27 "British Justice Gore actually concluded that Gore's film was substantially founded upon scientific research and that the film's four scientific hypotheses were very well supported by research published in respected peer-reviewd journals".