The Climate Change Conspiracy... Conspiracy | Anjali Appadurai | TEDxSurreySalon

[@mtnbiker14]

Hope isn't the answer to disinformation. Correct and verified information is the answer to disinformation.

[@MrTubs911]

Open debate is the better way.

[@NickHenry-t1e]

But KZbin won't even allow the argument to be presented. And I'm always skeptical when one side is being censored. The govt never has our best interest at heart.

[@RobertMJohnson]

and NOTHING about anthropogenic climate change is correct nor verified ya uneducated leftist

[@jrnhelgemagnussen9579]

​@@MrTubs911 Why debatte what the scientists are quiet certain about (they really are confident about the human impact of the climate)? Why not try to use the energy to find the best possible solutions to cope with the problems with the impact the humans cause to the climate? Remember. We are over 8 billions, which impact most of the world in every ways. The negative biological consequences are scaring, destroying ecosystems all over the World. We impact the local climate, by unsustainable forrst industries, straigthen up rivers, draining og wetlands/swamps and the instensification of the agriculture. Why doesn't we also impact the atmosphere?

[@climatebell]

You are correct. I've spent over 2 years to help provide a correct set of computations and as we might expect, the establishment isn't on the right path.

[@daveslater9141]

We live in a time in history where truth is something from the past

[@fotografbillylindberg]

Her job is to tell the politicians story!

[@dannyhunn8752]

It is disappointing that with such wisdom and knowledge the world gets stuck with the kind of idiots that we have in parliament.

[@jimthain8777]

One guess about who funds their election campaigns.

[@GregAntonicic]

Government is a parliament of whores. The problem is WE are the whores. - p.j. o'rourke

[@tabishkhan7758]

juice

[@misterlyle.]

An intensely emotional start, but then interesting insight into various issues follows. Regrettably, policy makers and government leaders often do not make decisions in the best interests of the people and the environment. We need more people talking and asking questions, and that includes opposing voices.

[@dougsinthailand7176]

Slavery was convenient too. But we outgrew that.

[@RipMinner]

No we did not. The media just don't cover it any more. Still slavery going on.

[@playhard719]

Na we just find a more convenient way to exploit the masses.

[@jimthain8777]

Excellent analogy, to our current situation. Just like now that took a lot of fight from everyday people to make that happen.

[@MrDavil43]

So there's no slavery in our world now? Hmm

[@gennadiyleyfman6920]

I really hope that we did!

[@DomCliff-i3h]

A powerful, intelligent and detailed talker. 10/10, a true professional

[@eddiegrant58]

🤣

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

Communications professional?

[@kennorthunder2428]

At 2:00 to 2:06 She said: "Thanks to some excellent research by Harvard and the pop-stem institute." Am I hearing hear correctly "Pop-stem institute"? I did a google search. All I'm seeing is Salata Institute.

[@jimthain8777]

@@kennorthunder2428 Potsdam institute. By the way you probably make several mispronunciations every time you open your mouth, as do I. So let's not call out others for what we do ourselves, shall we?

[@jeffsmith9420]

Also 100% liar.

[@tidtidy4159]

The science is done, now its about the politics.

[@robertmarmaduke9721]

Now it's about the -politics- greenwäshing extörtion rackët! FIFY.

[@eddiegrant58]

Now it's about depopulation via starvation and other means.

[@trickslies844]

@@eddiegrant58 you say that like its a bad thing

[@eddiegrant58]

@@trickslies844 So are you going to voluntarily starve yourself to death for the planet? Something tells me you won't.

[@fuzzywzhe]

If the science is done, where is the model? Do you have any idea what kind of computing power you have today? When I was in college, 1000 people would share a single computer for a school of 30,000 people to do engineering work on. You have that in your pocket now. Yet no models are available, they are supposedly "too complex", well they claimed to have accurate reliable models in the 1990s.

[@benediktkaufer8194]

The companies should be held accountable!!!

[@kayakMike1000]

For what? Supplementing the atmospheric CO2, a necessary trace gas that makes plants grow faster? For chemical fertilizers that largely solved all food productivity problems? For novel materials like plastics that are instrumental in life saving medicines and therapies? Yeah, thanks Exxon. Thanks BP. Thanks shell.

[@thomaswwwiegand]

WE user, costumer are the one USING the products ! Stop using the products or reduce and problem is solved - and the companies CAN'T do anything against their downfall.

[@NickHenry-t1e]

Stop believing everything you see on the internet. The oil companies make money off "green energy" as well. And human's are responsible for like .0003% of the CO2

[@edgar-valentine]

Nobody is making you use fossil fuels.

[@gimpygrandpa8281]

Those behind the climate hoax and those benefiting should be held accountable.

[@valeriemontpetit9137]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this video. I was turning in circles at home, worrying about my two children and the state of the planet. You brought me easy and HOPE. xx

[@kjm5593]

Joking right... Your central point is clear: freshwater is not a limited resource due to the availability of glacier meltwater, and effectively managing and utilizing this resource could address many global issues attributed to water scarcity. Here are some key considerations to emphasize your perspective: 1. Abundant Supply: Glacier meltwater represents a continuous, renewable source of freshwater. Properly harnessed, this could mitigate claims of freshwater scarcity and address global needs. 2. Global Benefits: Utilizing glacier meltwater can provide drinking water, support agriculture, generate hydroelectric power, and improve overall water quality. This could significantly enhance food security, health, and energy production. 3. Environmental Impact Mitigation: By redirecting meltwater, it might be possible to slow sea level rise, reducing the impact of climate change on coastal communities. 4. Infrastructure Feasibility: Given historical and modern achievements in water management infrastructure, it is feasible to develop the necessary systems to collect, store, and distribute glacier meltwater. 5. Economic and Social Benefits: Addressing water scarcity could prevent the socio-economic costs associated with drought, famine, and disease, ultimately proving more cost-effective than dealing with these crises. 6. Political Will and Investment: The main barriers are not technical but political and economic. Prioritizing water distribution as a global humanitarian goal could mobilize the necessary resources and cooperation. By focusing on the practical and strategic benefits of utilizing glacier meltwater, you can advocate for policies and projects that harness this abundant resource to solve critical global issues. The argument is that with the right political will and investment, we can shift the narrative from scarcity to abundance, effectively addressing the root causes of many current and future challenge

[@kjm5593]

I ask AI why peep pretend we have lack fresh water. It's easy n cheap minuscule to treatment impact and cost . It mitigates or eliminates all negative.

[@RobertMJohnson]

because you have zero education in anything related to climate change

[@Alwayscatlike]

@@kjm5593 Most of our planet is water, its called the ocean. We've come along far enough in todays world they can take salt out of the water.

[@ericknava713006]

Everyone! why? because everyone wants to be right but no one wants to do the RIGHT thing when they're wrong.

[@AtlanticFun]

Thankyou for such an informative and hopeful message.

[@TennesseeJed]

I have been hoping so long to no avail I am thinking that hope might not be the way to anything.

[@DaveE99]

Next try behavioral activation

[@jimthain8777]

The best hope is doing something. Even something small. It may make no difference at all. (at least that's what they'll tell you) Do it anyway, even if it only makes you feel better, because "they" are wrong. every tiny bit of CO2 that isn't added to the total, makes that total a tiny bit smaller. While the things we do ourselves won't fix the problem by themselves, if we don't do our part, then we can't force industry, and government to do their part. Only when we get all three doing their part will we really see a big change, and it IS going to happen. So chin up and fight harder!

[@TennesseeJed]

@@jimthain8777 I admire your optimism.

[@DaveE99]

Learn to make bio char, not hard and actually words

[@edgar-valentine]

This nonesense will pass. Its a real shame that we squander fossil fuels but nevertheless the present hysteria will be replaced with another soon enough..... too many people became too few. It will be too little warming next!

[@henryjanicky4978]

Fear ,misinformation, ideology, money grabs business

[@grahammewburn]

I read one of Carl Sagan's books. In that book he claims cosmologists discovered global warming. Venus is many times hotter than Earth. Cosmologists were trying to understand why. They decided the cause was carbon dioxide. They noted that Earth's carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere were rising. Cosmologists rang the global warming alarm bell. Carl Sagan was an eminent scientist, whom I trust.

[@Jone4f]

The plant say otherwise. More carbon dioxide equals more plant life. Sagan made his best guess. Not proven. What is proven is the solar maximum and solar minimum affects the weather more than that!

[@RobertMJohnson]

the giver of all life is the cause for alarm? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[@FLANG3265]

They don't tell you the pressure difference. CO2 isn't causing anything

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@RobertMJohnson "the giver of all life is the cause for alarm?" We have to think a little harder than that to understand anything in life. Yes, CO2 is essential for life, but too much is harmful or deadly, just as you need water or blood pressure, but too much is harmful or deadly. Increasing global Co2 levels is already hurting people and the planet in hundreds of ways.

[@chrisconklin2981]

The only obligation that a corporate business has is to maximize the profits for it's shareholders. It is the shareholders that we must change.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

😂

[@jimthain8777]

Which is one of the reasons why I don't hold shares in oil & gas companies.

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

I bet you are not aware of the Net Zero investment company run by Mark Carney investing in foreign oil

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@eilaollinheimo4573 Management and investor relations became an issue a number of years back. Management wanted to become more socially responsible, but investors wanted more profits. The courts sided with the investors.

[@imhotrichandsexy7499]

hahahaha so you want to change human nature? yea sure buddy

[@srinivasvaranasi1645]

The Irony is that the latest COPS summit in Dubai was led by an oil proponent. Now they are setting the agenda to slowdown quick efforts to reduce oil consumption.

[@jimthain8777]

Did you hear about the flooding in Dubai this year? Some would call that Karma...

[@stormbringerseven8288]

Follow the money.

[@keithhutchins8966]

@@jimthain8777 Some would. Others might cite Geo Engineering and other man made interferences that we are not allowed to discuss.

[@liqueweave]

It's going to be extremely difficult. Climate change was already noticed when we were just 1-2 billion. Now we're 8. Even if our carbon footprint would be 15% of what it was 100 years ago - without cars, electronics, travel - we'd still stay on trend. We need 8x as much mining, 8x as much furniture and heating. More, in fact, since we don't live in multi-generation cottages, and we renew and replace our homes every so often. We insulate better but also heat more. (25°C is the minimum expected in offices, malls, homes.) It all begins by shaming the Economic Growth. Which is difficult because public debt is designed with it.

[@patpat5135]

As long as our comfortable life style will be more expensive than the cost of the consequences of global warming there are little chances for real change

[@phvaessen]

​@@patpat5135 difficult ? yes. Impossible ? No. The future of energy production should prioritize renewables, particularly solar and wind, supplemented by storage batteries. Utilizing just 175 square miles of desert land could feasibly generate enough electricity to meet 100% of the USA's needs, representing a mere 0.1% of the country's desert area. However, this vision is often dismissed as "impossible" due to concerns about its perceived costliness rather than recognizing its potential as an economic opportunity. Given that the USA possesses a sovereign currency, concerns about debt are largely mitigated as long as inflation remains manageable. The prevailing notion that governments should manage finances akin to households is a fallacy that persists.

[@jimthain8777]

Strange, because I'm already seeing change. That change is predicted to accelerate this decade. Hold on to your hat, because big change is right around the corner. Already Coal is dying. It is now the most expensive way to make electricity, while Renewables with storage, is the cheapest. What that means is that it is increasingly uneconomic to use coal for pretty much anything. Gasoline might seem strong today, but it's already in trouble. (That trouble is being hidden from the public with some very creative accounting.) I have a feeling the oil industry is going to make Enron's creative accounting look like amateur day, when it all hits the fan. This is why I don't invest in these companies. I don't like losing my money.

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

So you recommend poor folks freeze to death...Got it

[@jimthain8777]

@@eilaollinheimo4573 Fear mongering. How original of you. With things like ground based heat pumps no one who has a furnace now has to freeze to death. Fear mongering and lies are all that's left to fossil fuels.

[@RieCherie]

The solutions are so simple and do-able!

[@RobertMJohnson]

solutions are so simple and do-able yet no one is doing them. think next time

[@nealy2815]

Very true. Thanks you.

[@grantcooper1307]

Listened to the first 3 minutes. Stopped to avoid throwing up at this chunderous agent of politicisation and misinformation!

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

She is a politician and activist and was thrown out from leadership race for acting against rules

[@simonsena1378]

Interesting, I never thought that oil companies created the environment for the extreme right to thrive. They've certainly benefited from it.

[@pawelhorna4801]

I came for science, I got emotional talk mixing pro immigration crazy policies into the real climate warming problem. Not TED talks I like.

[@jeremyx1431]

Yes.. trust the science they say.. where have I heard that before?

[@StuJones-gn7te]

If you read the statements by global warming/climate change enthusiasts on the website 50 years of failed climate change predictions, you'll note that almost all of them are emotional and not scientific.

[@mnguardianfan7128]

@@jeremyx1431 The problem has been corporate influence on politicians for more than 30 years now. The science has been understood enough since then to take action.

[@Tony-kq6py]

By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon, adding up to 99.96 percent. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. To think that a small increase (200 parts per million in the last hundred years) of carbon dioxide would affect the weather is absurd.

[@fuzzywzhe]

I'm impressed you could make this comment and it's visible. Complex comments with detailed information and thinking is generally deleted by an AI on this site.

[@climateteacherjohnj7763]

Here's what the science says: "Small amounts of very active substances can cause huge effects." It doesn't matter if you do not wish to understand it or want to call the science, "absurd". It matters that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Oxygen and nitrogen are not.

[@-LightningRod-]

all the LSD i take comes in 2 kilogram tablets,...did you know you can choke to death on Oxygen?

[@5353Jumper]

From a manual on employee safety - "H2S is immediately fatal when concentrations are over 500-1000 parts per million (ppm) but exposure to lower concentrations, such as 10-500 ppm, can cause various respiratory symptoms that range from rhinitis to acute respiratory failure." Small ppm of a gas can have significant effect on life. With the ppm of atmospheric carbon going high above anything seen in the last million years, nothing on earth is adapted to the atmosphere we are creating. Millions of scintist and researchers agree that high levels of atmospheric carbon are a problem. Despite your feelings on the issue, sorry I will believe them instead.

[@fuzzywzhe]

@@5353Jumper CO2 is not higher than it ever has been in MILLIONS of years. Not anywhere close. Our atmosphere has about 0.04% CO2. At 0.02% plants can't grow, they die. Plants are STARVING for CO2. People in power LIE, don't you know that by now? There's no climate emergency, we're not destroying the planet.

[@SaradinduGhosh-q4d]

Who are responsible to spread misconception about climate change? What is the results of suppressing the truth about fossil fuel's role in climate change?

[@mnguardianfan7128]

It is clear that it is the fossil fuel industry and the bought politicians to support them.

[@Clint-stanley]

Early part of this had some good content. Never mentions Solar and Battery as it is the cheapest way to product Electricity period. Costs will drive more change than her two ways out. We are in a great time where there are now good options. Options that cost alone will drive positive climate change.

[@jimthain8777]

Agreed. The change is going to come faster than some people will be able to handle.

[@Brohadude]

In my opinion - this is the far most important problem we and our children will face. These 700 comments from smart people and a few fake accounts will become far over 7,000 someday.

[@VinceTomJones]

well ... A horse walks into a bar... says... First they called it "Global Warming"... well nobody believed that..... sooo they changed the name to "Climate Change" well nobody believed that either.. sooo they ran a competition to come up with a name that everybody would believe.... The winner was "The Sky is Falling".... let's see if that works ... don't hold your breath.. lol....

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@VinceTomJones Your comment reveals how have no understanding of the history or science of the issue--and basically EVERY nation on Earth believes in man-made global warming as do the vast majority of adults in wealthy educated nations.

[@johnkintree763]

Someday, the comments could come from over 7 billion people, and stored in a knowledge graph, with builtin fact checking, and clustering by similarity, and with reports on which proposals are being discussed by the most people, and how people feel about those proposals, and how those feelings change over time, becoming a form of collective terrestrial intelligence.

[@andylitespeed]

For 500 million years there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperature. What has changed? Politics. The UN funded research into finding a correlation. Notice the usual gloss over the science (everyone knows the science, right)? Straight into the politics of blame and shame. One day in the future that mother will look back and realise how we were deceived.

[@praem9597]

Thank you.

[@thoutube9522]

That's actually not true. Of course, nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the ONLY thing affecting temperature. And over deep time, many other factors come into play. Over THAT distance in time, our continents are different and the sun's output varies significantly. Sea level has varied by as much as 70 metres. So it's insane to make comparisons. What we do know is that the current rise in temperatures is not in accordance with natural cycles; nor is it triggered by vulcanism or the sun.

[@qzamboni]

Do you also believe cigarettes are good for you, that no other industry (besides oil/gas) has ever done anyone harm or deceived the public, that the Earth is flat, that the Rapture will soon be upon us, or that dinosaurs are a hoax? The only people afraid of science are the same people who would have burned "witches" at the stake back in the day. F***ing morons, we're trying to save all your lives.

[@praem9597]

@@thoutube9522 Youbre talking nonsense. Climate change is a scam.

[@davebrewer7170]

@@thoutube9522 there are scientists who don’t agree with your conclusion not partially caused by sun. If you started with a clean sheet of paper and listed the 10 most important topics to work on to improve human condition on global basis, climate change wouldn’t make top 10

[@jenniferlevine5406]

What a great speaker! Well said.

[@cjedd2312]

If climate change really was an issue our world leaders would've adopted a net zero approach towards wars & weapons manufacturing - Peace & diplomacy is the easiest way to swiftly reduce our footprint

[@martinphillips7733]

no it isn't

[@cjedd2312]

​@@martinphillips7733​ oh yes it is.. there are lots of things we do not do, but for some reason we only do the things that profit the super rich & cost the rest of us

[@stevewilson4321]

Ya because politicians only do what’s best for us… Just look at Trump…You probably don’t get outside much.

[@antc5010]

There's no connection. You either choose to trust the science or discard it. War is always going to be around when there's issues with respect.

[@Worldcitizenravi]

Powerful, PetroNationalism! Great Job.

[@DPS-Runner_Cyclist]

But wait….mis-information is a 2-way door.

[@antc5010]

Really? You either trust science or discard it. There's no in between cherry picking and discarding the bits you don't like.

[@4713Caine]

@@antc5010 really? I can think of science disregarded by skeptics, but I can also think of science disregarded by scientists. For example, 20 years of temperature pause is short compared to 200 plus years of warming, and 20 years of pause certainly seems short compared to billions of years of natural climate history. By the same token 200 years seems short compared to billions of years of natural warming, and 20 vs 200 is miniscule vs billions, a fact scientists conveniently overlook in all of their public messaging. I wholeheartedly agree science doesn't care whether you believe it or not, but that argument cuts both ways.

[@lamechorinda9478]

Anjali Appadurai🎉🎉

[@katherandefy]

Her informed passion so well said.

[@jeffsmith9420]

Its also 100% false.

[@mortenh.o.703]

No one denies climate change. No one. But humans causing it we disagree about

[@simpledragon]

Because we live in a democracy the economics weighs heavily on getting votes. Big money has immense power over politicians and false narratives. Putin has a stranglehold over all oil resources and economic sectors. What level of control are we under compared to Russia? How do we stop our politicians from speaking from the power and oil industries perspective? Who stopped Alberta wind expansion? The ideas and possibilities to expand green power technologies must be encouraged by our Alberta Premier not stifled.

[@DaveE99]

The only real way to fix this and future similar issues is to just get money out of politics and limit timeline of campaigns so we aren’t all at each others throats for more than 4 months of a year, and then to give them each a lump sum and let them go at it

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

Is that why Mark Carney run net zero investment company invest in foreign oil?

[@jimthain8777]

@@eilaollinheimo4573 In my opinion that's a bad idea. He stands to lose a LOT of money by the end of this decade.

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

I am sure that these backroom deal making politicians know more than you and me where to invest

[@audacyspectrum3612]

I stopped and thought about this awhile ago and made so research of my own.. One of the puzzling questions I had was: How did the glaciers melt? There were no big human cities, no planes,cars, no industries etc... and by far not, as many humans as there is now! It would have taken either a huge catastrophic event that plummeted the earth into a heat dome..but then it would have also put the earth into a long and cold winter effect for years afterwards... or was it simply a natural, gradual "climate change". The answer is in front of us. Our past holds the key. I'm sure that we help the process with our carbon traces exponentially. But there's an obvious trend going on.

[@ChicoRico-vn9us]

I’ve been driving EVs for the last 10 years and even took a passive solar design course at BCIT in the 80s However I had a similar ‘awakening’ last month when on an Alaska Cruise. It was seeing the retreating glaciers and observing the many maps provided by National Park Service showing the contours of the retreating glaciers back to the 1400s !! Not too many SUVs back then. And it was even more concerning when the Ranger provided an extremely unscientific reason for the retreat due to climate change. People need to try to escape ‘The Matrix’ of group think and do their own research with an open mind and realize that mass psychosis is real and has happens many times over the centuries. There are many renowned scientists that clearly show, with real data and formulas that CO2 barely has any effect on the temperature increase and it was already happening. However increasing CO2 has many positive effects such as increasing food production and greening of the planet by 20%. Check out Patrick Moore or other scientists such as a good professor from Princeton and make up your own mind. All the new power technologies are good but this is not an emergency.

[@rickrys2729]

Disinformation has greatly slowed our transition to sustainable energy. Exxon CEO recently dared us to put a price on carbon. Change is done by policy and regulations and local are regional regulations are working even if the federal level is bogged down by lobbyists.

[@ConfiscatedZyra]

and how well is that working in Germany with their wind farms?

[@chriscangelosi9438]

Nuclear power is the safest and has a lower carbon footprint than wind fans !! 😮

[@Mivoat]

Unfortunately, it’s too late for renewable energy to save the planet. Respected top scientist Jim Hansen and his team released a paper recently that said even with no more emissions the planet is in for a 10°C rise within about 400 years, and roughly another 2°C rise by the end of the century to 4°C. The planet has dimmed, by shrinking ice slightly reduced cloud cover. What is needed is mainly ocean cooling by Marine cloud brightening.

[@normanstewart7130]

"Marine cloud brightening". You want to precipitate an ice age?

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

More untested ideas to mess up with natural equilibrium.

[@Mivoat]

@@eilaollinheimo4573 What natural equilibrium?

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

Not all ideas that sound good on paper should be implemented if there could be unintended and unknown consequences. Oppenheimer never quite think the human toll of his work

[@normanstewart7130]

Do you have a reference for that Hansen paper?

[@whatthebosh]

i love it. very idealistic and will never come into existence unfortunately.

[@mnguardianfan7128]

She is doing the most that she can, trying to influence the public to put pressure on politicians to do the right thing...resist the fossil fuel industry

[@بوحميدةمحمدبنأحمد]

- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today April 25, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 99 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA.

[@PrinceJohn84]

We must act!!!

[@trainman2860]

We have not studied the earth's long tern natural cycles to know if we have any effect. We know there was an ice age 6000 years ago and the oceans were hundreds of feet lower. We are going the other way. The First Nations of the world picked up and moved as the oceans rose as the ice age melted. We have to move as the natural world channges.

[@pyunneglesias2974]

Move where? We now have more science and technology to mitigate climate change than the First Nations of the world, so shouldn't we take advantage of that? It is not easy to combat climate change, but we have never been more capable than today.

[@RobertGotschall-y2f]

STAR TREK isn't widely available yet

[@trainman2860]

@@pyunneglesias2974 I doubt that the First Nations of the past were as stationary as we are today as they would have had to follow the herds of animals that were their food source.

[@100FactChecks]

It doesn't rain anymore where I live. Our new incoming government doesn't care, either. We will be removed from the Paris Accord and government officials who talk about climate change may be replaced by climate change deniers. Without help from the government, how can citizens unite and organize well enough to preserve and protect the environment?

[@triplebeam23]

This lady is beautiful 😍

[@shoban1520]

AS always animal agriculture is the elephant in the room.

[@FourthWayRanch]

I'm going on 60 and I don't see any climate change

[@CutYourBangs9]

Not everyone is so lucky.

[@michaeljordan5972]

I'm 61 going on 62 if anything it used to be hotter

[@thomaswwwiegand]

Maybe you lucky live in an area, where local (100*100 km) in real is no change yet ... but most of us are not even able to detect the change, like 0.2 dC rise.

[@christianfaust5141]

Some people just want to oppose I guess. I am 58 born and living in Germany. Till my age of thirteen we had snow in Düsseldorf up to 15cm snow. Then it got less and less snow and when I got twenty there was no snow at tall anymore. 2009 we had one year of snow. On the next year it disappeared again. In 2003 and from 2012 till 2020 Germany faced serious water issues the rhine had very less water. The shipping had to be reduced very much. Germany so hot and dry that it faced severe water supply issues, if someone had told me as youngster I would have laughed at him. In 2021 and this year it is pouring rain all the time with large scale flooding. In Canada last year around one billion trees were destroyed by fires and I think Canadian trees are not that small. We cannot compensate them so quickly. They are badly missing for converting co2 into o2. I don't know where you are living but even with 60 it's not too late to open your eyes and face the truth.

[@FourthWayRanch]

@@christianfaust5141 Canadian forest fires are from poor management of the resource trying to protect the lumber industry

[@JohnChampagne]

Anyone who is concerned about the broader societal good may want to join a call for fees charged to industries proportional to emissions, resource extraction or habitat destruction. This policy would mean that prices will show harm to the environment. People will make better decisions about what to buy and where to put investment funds. The policy will be fair if proceeds from fees are shared equally, so that the resulting price increases don't make the poor worse-off. Raise fees for faster transition to sustainabiility.

[@antonstoeckl3689]

If she is in Southern B.C., why did she not go to the Columbia Ice Field nearby at the Banf National Park. The Glacier at the Ice Field retreats since 1840. CO2 Emissions from combustion engines are blamed for the warming up of the atmosphere. Gottlieb Daimler, Karl Benz and Rudolf Diesel have invented the combustion engines only about 50 years later. QUESTION: How can this be explained?

[@misterlyle.]

The idea is that human industry and energy production are _artificially_ increasing the rate of climate change. In a general sense, the world has warmed since the last glacial maximum; at some point it will begin cooling as the current "interglacial" period winds down. That is, unless human pollution interrupts the glaciation cycle altogether.

[@qzamboni]

Um, there was also the Industrial Revolution... It isn't just combustion engines. 🤦

[@jeffsmith9420]

That's just an annoying little fact..... Silly you.

[@antonstoeckl3689]

PLEASE correct my little silly little fact?

[@antc5010]

You can find 100's of site specific examples as you mention that seemingly opposed CC which scientists are well aware of. The important fact is the overwhelming scientific evidence collectively demonstrates that human induced climate change exists. These changes probably pre-date the Industrial Revolution as significant areas of land had been deforested prior to the IR, which also contribute to CC.

[@kjm5593]

We have abundance not lack of fresh water .... we could mitigate and eliminate any negative.... even provide energy and way cheaper and easier then anything they doing. Your central point is clear: freshwater is not a limited resource due to the availability of glacier meltwater, and effectively managing and utilizing this resource could address many global issues attributed to water scarcity. Here are some key considerations to emphasize your perspective: 1. Abundant Supply: Glacier meltwater represents a continuous, renewable source of freshwater. Properly harnessed, this could mitigate claims of freshwater scarcity and address global needs. 2. Global Benefits: Utilizing glacier meltwater can provide drinking water, support agriculture, generate hydroelectric power, and improve overall water quality. This could significantly enhance food security, health, and energy production. 3. Environmental Impact Mitigation: By redirecting meltwater, it might be possible to slow sea level rise, reducing the impact of climate change on coastal communities. 4. Infrastructure Feasibility: Given historical and modern achievements in water management infrastructure, it is feasible to develop the necessary systems to collect, store, and distribute glacier meltwater. 5. Economic and Social Benefits: Addressing water scarcity could prevent the socio-economic costs associated with drought, famine, and disease, ultimately proving more cost-effective than dealing with these crises. 6. Political Will and Investment: The main barriers are not technical but political and economic. Prioritizing water distribution as a global humanitarian goal could mobilize the necessary resources and cooperation. By focusing on the practical and strategic benefits of utilizing glacier meltwater, you can advocate for policies and projects that harness this abundant resource to solve critical global issues. The argument is that with the right political will and investment, we can shift the narrative from scarcity to abundance, effectively addressing the root causes of many current and future challenge.

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

Anjali Appadurai is an activist and politician. She was disqualified from BC NDP leadership race due her cheating. And you listen to this person as she was some expert.

[@slendii366]

Yet she’s right.

[@Abdi-libaax]

The summer’s are getting hotter and winters is getting warmer

[@StuJones-gn7te]

We're getting less snow and there seems to be less transition between seasons now, but I'm not sure its warmer overall.

[@DavidBausch]

The Aztec calendar points to this period in the astrological position in time they calculated there would be a global scale change. Their Calendar was predicting the rapid climate change that will take place on earth caused by the alignments of planets stars galaxies calculations unmatched by even by todays computers. We must prepare ourselves not try to stop which is unstoppable like time

[@CoopAssembly]

In the 1980s, scientists were looking to the next ice age, based upon core samples.

[@antonbeloborodov5130]

Now they are only paid for Global Warming agenda.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

That was only a handful of some scientists and not the vast majority, who were shouting for the rooftop saying the planet is Heating and we're going to be in trouble. And the fact of the matter is we are not only going to miss the next ice age that we should be trending towards soon, which is where the forecast for coming from in the 70s about a pending ice age, but also because we're going to radically accelerate the heating beyond the normal cycle we've had for the last several million years

[@praem9597]

@@JonathanLoganPDX You are talking nonsense. Are you paid to write that?

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

@@praem9597 Nope. I've 40 years experience in climate science.

[@praem9597]

@@JonathanLoganPDXWhich one of Al Gore predictions is your favorite?

[@sandip121212]

To bear children in this world is like carrying a wood in a burning house ### 1. Environmental Impact - **Land Use**: Fewer people mean less demand for housing and agriculture, preserving natural habitats and reducing deforestation. - **Water Resources**: Reduced population decreases the strain on water supplies, which is crucial as freshwater is a limited resource. - **Air Quality**: Lower population leads to fewer vehicles and industrial activities, resulting in cleaner air and lower greenhouse gas emissions. #### Scientific References: - Ripple, W.J., et al. (2017). "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice." *Bioscience*. - Pimentel, D., et al. (2010). "Global Environmental Resources versus World Population Growth." *Ecological Economics*. ### 2. Reduced Pollution - **Lesser Pollution**: Fewer people generate less waste and pollution, reducing the burden on ecosystems and improving overall environmental health. #### Scientific References: - Steffen, W., et al. (2015). "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet." *Science*. ### 3. Food and Water Security - **More Food**: Lower population pressures on food supply can lead to more abundant and cheaper food. - **More Water**: Reduced population decreases the demand for water, ensuring more stable water resources. #### Scientific References: - Godfray, H.C.J., et al. (2010). "Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People." *Science*. ### 4. Health and Well-being - **Better Health**: Reduced pollution and lower strain on healthcare systems can lead to improved public health. - **Lesser Diseases**: Lower population densities reduce the transmission of diseases. #### Scientific References: - McMichael, A.J., et al. (2008). "Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses." *WHO*. ### 5. Economic Benefits - **Lesser Poverty**: Reduced competition for jobs and resources can lower poverty rates. - **Better Economy**: A stable or decreasing population can lead to a more balanced economy with sustainable growth. #### Scientific References: - Bloom, D.E., et al. (2011). "Population Dynamics and Economic Growth in Asia." *Asian Economic Policy Review*. ### 6. Natural Calamities - **Lesser Natural Calamities**: Lower population densities reduce the impact of natural disasters on human settlements. - **Lesser Climate Refugees**: Reduced climate change impacts due to lower emissions result in fewer displaced people. #### Scientific References: - Myers, N. (2002). "Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century." *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society*. ### 7. Social and Emotional Well-being - **Better Emotional State**: Less crowded living conditions and reduced competition for resources can improve mental health. - **Lesser Crimes**: Lower poverty and better mental health contribute to reduced crime rates. #### Scientific References: - Wilkinson, R.G., & Pickett, K. (2009). "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better." ### 8. Religious Perspectives While most religions encourage procreation, there are scriptural references that emphasize the importance of responsible parenthood and stewardship of the earth: - **Christianity**: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28) is often balanced by the call for stewardship and caring for creation (Genesis 2:15). - **Hinduism**: The concept of "Ahimsa" (non-violence) extends to all living beings, which can be interpreted as reducing harm through lower population pressures. - **Buddhism**: The principle of reducing suffering (Dukkha) supports the idea of having fewer children to reduce overall human suffering. #### Scriptural References: - Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:15 (Christianity) - Manusmriti 5.56 (Hinduism) - Dhammapada 1:5 (Buddhism) ### Conclusion Not having children can significantly contribute to solving global challenges such as environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and social issues. By reducing the strain on natural resources, improving health outcomes, and fostering a more sustainable economy, antinatalism presents a compelling case for creating a better world.

[@markverbruggen7868]

👆

[@itsme-youdope]

You, Madam, blew more hot air in 15 minutes than 5 major oil companies combined. Most of us have lost faith in major corps, but we have also lost faith in our politicians and their approach to the problem. While we are taxed heavily to have the cleanest air in the world, please take a quick trip to east Asia, middle east and Africa to see what real pollution is. I also encourage you to investigate why north America doesnt implement a more efficient recycling policy. While you're doing that, lookup the cost on extracting precious metals to make electric vehicles. One more thing, oil isn't just for burning in cars, look around your house and see how many items are made with the by-products of oil; what is your solution for that? What and how do you suppose the clothes, shoes, jewelery, purse, phone etc are made? Now, who do you think is the true gullible puppet?

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

Add medical and health field. MRI plastic frame, syringes etc

[@Kioooi]

Canada has the 6th highest co2 emissions by per capita in the world ranking above every country in the g7 and China with only the gulf states ahead of it. When you consider that the vast majority of emissions come from a select few companies that sell oil and gas it becomes even more obscene. There are plenty of alternatives to oil in many different fields and no one is saying we will get rid of oil overnight. It has always been about reduction and creating a balance so that the greenhouse effect doesn't run away on us and cause extinction level events like is has done in the past. These corporations have always privatized the profits and socialized their losses. Who is the real puppet and who is the real master?

[@markhivin8670]

You do not need oil to have both energy or product like plastic, you only need renewable electricity and you can do what ever you want!

[@itsme-youdope]

@@markhivin8670 Ok, how do you propose we make anything with electricity? Let's take a very simple item like a pen; how do you make a pen with renewable electricity? Where do we get the plastic needed or the ink? Most items around us are some dervation of fossil fuel but of course, the politicians don't talk about that because there is more to the story than meets the eye.

[@sharathahuja8261]

Please read, Kenneth E Boulding's poem, A Conservationist's Lament, it's as relevant now as it is when it was written in 1956.

[@jeffsmith9420]

Sounds like a load of BS

[@wolfscorogardens6098]

The climate change conspiracy conspiracy is a conspiracy 😂😂. The world has changed forever and keeps changing adapt

[@Bujbjjhfhhyfyvhvv]

Europeans and americans exagerrate this so called "Climate Change".😂😂 If it was that serious then why not europeans stop all of their companies and industries?😂😂 Instead of telling poor countries to not use cars. Europeans are just clowns😂😂

[@ylfzo]

Sound like you are just regurgitating bs that you ate from a bad politician 😂😂😂

[@sonofsomerset1695]

@@ylfzo Sounds like you have been brainwashed by the global elite scam, if it were true these so called scientists and politicians wouldnt be jetting around the world for a conference party every year would they, get a clue.

[@sonofsomerset1695]

@@hussierdaadi6855 Oh really, whys that then? Seeing as more Co2 and warming temperatures mean much more plant and crop growth.

[@sonofsomerset1695]

@@hussierdaadi6855 Yeah cause the dinosaurs had no water and no plants when it was far hotter with more Co2 did they? Oh wait. Stop falling for this climate cult BS.

[@TomR61]

It's been almost 20 years, where's the countries that are under water? Why are the politicians buying mansions in Martha's Vineyard? What a joke you are. 😅

[@grantcooper1307]

Who would trust the UN!???

[@dral9971]

Why not?

[@slendii366]

A reasonable person.

[@kevinclarke3026]

The climate has always changed if not, humans would not have made it through the ice age. Sea levels have also fallen and risen over time.

[@tonyfrench2574]

She adduces no evidence to support her declarations of dire circumstances and nirvana.

[@sarah-kk4om]

For climate change activists I believe they need this because most of them seem to have no religion and climate activism fulfills that need

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

Uhh, I'm a long-time Sunday School teacher and senior university professor, and the climate crisis has nothing to do with religion. It's simply a scientific fact that we caused ~98% of all global warming since 1900 and that this rapid global warming is already causing hundreds of harmful ripple effects that will keep getting worse and make ecological and societal breakdown worse and worse.

[@z.z.onichi5365]

mild winter? depends where, come to Quebec City lol -25°C at least+ windchill hehe

[@qzamboni]

Tobacco, leaded gasoline, PFAS, plastics ... the list goes on.

[@gonavy8167]

She has not looked at long-term warming and cooling cycles of the earth. We are in a warming cycle at this point.

[@D.NogueraMusic]

True, earth cycles are real the problem is we accelarate the process and aggravate its effects with our current practices.

[@praem9597]

​@@D.NogueraMusicWhere did you see that we accelerate the process? Graphs that correlate solar activitiws with temperatures have no place for CO2.

[@D.NogueraMusic]

@@praem9597 You know what CO2 does to the ambience right? Imagine we are in full summer heat and instead of turning the AC on we turn on the heater. Thats the greenhouse effect. Temperatures rising are natural causes, but greenhouse effect is man made.. we only need to adapt to the natural cycles.

[@praem9597]

@@D.NogueraMusic You are talking complete nonsense. Why are you lying?

[@praem9597]

@@D.NogueraMusic You are talking complete nonsense.

[@SeanHenderson-xx1vt]

That's my sisters exact story! only difference, she has 3 young kids.... oh, and works on an oil rig to support her family!

[@stevewilson4321]

Good time for her to look for a better career then

[@JaToriaV]

The way she speaks is very hypnotizing, isn't it? Ridiculous. 0 carbon=0 life.

[@qzamboni]

Zero water = zero life too, yet for some reason we don't flood all our homes.

[@peterdollins3610]

You shouldn't feel fear, you should feel terror. James Hansen says Renewables need Nuclear Power and Carbon Taxes to be paid back to the General Public.

[@george5120]

She talks politics. She does not talk science. So I am unpersuaded.

[@DrizzyB]

What???

[@Skouta007]

Rubbish...Trumptards talk nonsense.

[@Skouta007]

Wake up idio$...stop believing idiots like Trump.

[@eddiegrant58]

@@Skouta007 Come back once you've watched the recent documentary called "climate: the movie" - featuring scientists from Harvard, MIT, Caltech, etc. There you will hear the other side of the debate, which is normally hidden.

[@Skouta007]

@@eddiegrant58 huh???

[@FreddieVee]

I'm writing this comment in May, 2024: I was born in WW2, so climate change will not have much time to damage my life, but I see many people born since 2,000 who are ready to vote for the candidate for America's President who denies global climate change and who has told the fossil fuel companies that he will remove antipollution regulations while reducing incentive programs for consumers to go green.

[@misterlyle.]

All of which amounts to little compared to the accelerating carbon dioxide output from Asia.

[@mve6182]

Already in the introduction this lady is talking nonsense: wildfires are not increasing, in fact they are steadily decreasing. What does increase is the amount of media-coverage of wildfires, giving people the impression wildfires are out of control (source: Bjorn Lomborg, 2023).

[@tidtidy4159]

He's Bjorn blomborg, he would say that. Its bogus.

[@Skouta007]

Bull$hit...where is your evidence...stop crapping on Trumptard...

[@trickslies844]

Bjorn Lomborg is not a Source you thick c**t. A source is something we can actually verify and nothing coming out of Lomborg's mouth on climate change has ever been confirmed to be true

[@astronautical1082]

A fact-free ideological assertion built on forgiving oneself for not doing the hard work of becoming better minded.

[@eddiegrant58]

Misinformation is totally acceptable and even encouraged, provided it's the right kind of misinformation.

[@simon7790]

A true Goddess.

[@vincentdupuis6519]

THE QUESTION SGOULD BE who is getting rich by solar and wind SO CALLED GREEN ENERGY. Billion have been given of the tax payers money to B with no results that are green or reliable. who is paying her ?

[@antc5010]

Why is it that people rally to the defence of the might hydrocarbon industry when global scientific consensus shows it is harming us?

[@davidcamelot4908]

Well I just realized , adding 1 trillion tonnes of co2 to atmosphere would not just change the jet streams, it should likely disorder the electrical activity of the sky, as co2 is likely a bad conductor , where as water and moist air is better , so it’s like adding a 30 % stronger resistor or capacitor to a circuit , the capacitor, high sky , building up a bigger charge when finally released . Thus likely More violent weather .

[@robhuhges]

She talks complete bollox

[@preimer22]

Home schooled, were you?

[@robhuhges]

@@preimer22 indoctrinated were you?

[@praem9597]

I agree.

[@Divine_Health_And_Fitness]

The corporations are responsible not the average person for climate change. Ordinary people should not pay the price. I’m more than happy to do my part, but corporations need to do theirs too. I’m not saying we should wait on corporations to change, but we should not shame the average person just trying to survive. I don’t have to money for an electric vehicle. I don’t have money to buy all organic food. Right now I’m practicing harm reduction and that’s enough so I can sleep at night with a clear conscience.

[@Clyde-2055]

The mournful cries of violins are about the only thing missing from this steaming pile of …

[@KarynaStoica2008]

All this sounds nice, but there are many places on Earth where people live and winters are still bellow the temperature that requires heatting. We can't drop fosil fuels for non sustainable solutions. And there are sustainable solutions, just they will not be used, because they are not easilly monetyzable.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"All this sounds nice, but there are many places on Earth where people live and winters are still bellow the temperature that requires heatting" Uhhh, warming up the whole planet just so those folks don't have to heat their homes would destroy most ecosystems and our food supply. All life on Earth--including humans--is totally dependent on the health of Earth's ecosystems, but emitting CO2 disrupts and destroys those ecosystems, so we are steadily pushing the web of life toward collapse. In short, burning fossil fuels is the poster child of UN-sustainability.

[@normanstewart7130]

I can't believe the number of myths this woman is peddling.

[@jhodapp]

Such as?

[@normanstewart7130]

@@jhodapp Such as the assertion that anybody who questions the orthodoxy is in the pay of some corporation.

[@jhodapp]

@@normanstewart7130 Did she say "anybody" or just mention some oil companies and their scientists?

[@eilaollinheimo4573]

That tends to be their only claim. They are not willing to debate and refute the points. They just smear.

[@markTheWoodlands]

I wonder what Putin would say to her anti-war message. The Ayatollah would throw her in prison for hurting oil exports and not covering her hair.

[@eddiegrant58]

What happens when there is a globally-coordinated campaign to incentivize (or force) farmers to produce less food? Starvation much?

[@trickslies844]

The only thing risking famine right now are the self destructive practices of industrial scale farming

[@eddiegrant58]

@@trickslies844 Not true. New policies which make it impossible for many European farmers to continue producing food will likely lead to famine. And here in the UK farmers are being offered vast sums of money by the government to stop producing food on their land. These are destructive policies. The government, the EU, the UN - they are not your friend. Are you a paid propagandist or do you genuinely believe in anthropogenic climate change?

[@trickslies844]

@@eddiegrant58 Those policies are there because framers keep keep over using fertilizers and such which is poisoning our water supply and killing the environment. Turns out drowning the country side in manure isn't a good idea. None of which has anything to do with global warming . Nor are we at risk of a famine in any way. For one thing the UK has been a food importer for centuries and the other is that we waste far more food on a day to day basis then we would lose to these policies

[@eddiegrant58]

@@trickslies844 Politicians, those at the EU, the UN, etc - they don't have any genuine concern for the environment. I guarantee you that. We are definitely at risk of famine as a consequence of destructive decisions of western governments over recent years, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. " the UK has been a food importer for centuries" - for one thing, have you thought about how WWIII might influence food imports? Do you think western leaders have done everything they possibly could to prevent a hot war reaching their soil? Quite the contrary.

[@fuzzywzhe]

@@trickslies844 No. Not at all. We have completely revolutionized farming. It's easy to end starvation today.

[@NickHenry-t1e]

Why can't we find the other side of the argument on KZbin??? I distrust any narrative where the argument is censored.

[@rps1689]

There is no lack of it out there on youtube, but it is mostly done by washouts in science that couldn't cut it in their field anymore and switched to careers in what amounts to oil industry public relations for the money or to follow their political beliefs.

[@antc5010]

The internet is awash with it! The problem is it's based on selective science. That is, trusting the geological evidence showing climate change has existed in distant past, but won't trust the same science covering human history.

[@peterjol]

The entire SYSTEM itself MUST be changed in a way that put's an end to 'infinite growth on a finite planet' being the ONLY way the system can 'work', and the only possible way you COULD do that and still have a system that 'works' would be by making it financially worthwhile for people to SHARE the jobs we NEED to have done and working much less. A world where the human race is no longer working primarily FOR money but sharing in doing something we agree we NEED and getting paid to do it!!...An entirely different goal of the system.

[@coreynoemif3j29]

Every morning I get in my truck for work and it’s radio is set to the default station of the national weather broadcast service and it gives a climate summary every single day of the previous day and 99% of the time the record high temperature was set around 100 years ago For instance today I got in and yesterday in North Carolina it was 95° at 3 PM and the record was 98 set back in 1929. A week ago I got in the truck and it said the record temperature was 101 set back in 1889!So in 150 years, the temperature hasn’t increased at all on that specific day. But how many people listen to the national weather broadcast service give a summary of the previous days record temperature? Hardly anybody. Over the last six months on a daily basis I hear: The record on this day was set in 1902, 1921, 1887, 1859, 1970 1930, 1919, etc occasionally, it’s current. Here’s a quote from Alexandria Acasio-Cortez from 2019: Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' This is a perfect example of how politicians are spearheading this lie about the world ending. Commercials about the world catching on fire etc. constantly stoking peoples fear to pass political agendas based in lies. Oh, and one more that literally just came on for today August 29th in Nc. The record was set back in 1948 at 101°. That’s 80 years ago.

[@rps1689]

Regional anecdotes are irrelevant. You need at least fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations, and thirty years to stand out from weather noise alone.

[@rps1689]

I see you use the oldest trick in the propagandists' playbook. Pretending an obvious joke was a sincere attempt to misinform or a serious claim. Tsk tsk, how long have you been flogging that canard that that zany AOC said we will all die in 12 years?

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"and it gives a climate summary every single day of the previous day" NO, it doesn't. Even local summer climate is about long term climate over decades for the whole summer, including averages and other data besides highest temps for a single day. Local climate is about trends for the whole year across many decades. The AVERAGE temps for the year for every spot on Earth including where you live are measurably higher now than they were in the 1920s or 1930s. Take care.

[@coreynoemif3j29]

@ I’m confused what your point is exactly. When it says for instance, if today was July 3 and it says yesterday on July 2, the record high was set in 1902 at 105° and currently yesterday’s (current date) was 75 which was below average for this time of year, how was that not a climate summary for THAT day on that date? Not to mention global collective temperatures were not even collected until the late 1800s. You come at this with a presupposed world view that the Earth is millions if not billions of years old. So any fluctuations in temperature such as a degree or two on average is considered extreme. Compared to what? Temperature always fluctuates from day to day, decade to decade, and century to century. If the last hundred to 150 years of collective data shows it’s warmer than when we started collecting data, how do you come to the conclusion that the temperature has risen any faster than say 1000 years ago? When it wasn’t recorded? How do you know? So your point is that the temperature should always remain the same? Like on average throughout the span of a century or 1000 years? Because the key phrase you used was “measurably warmer”. Why does that suggest that Man is doing it? To the point of using fear tactics to scare everyone in to making drastic change as if we’re not going to have a world to live in shortly?

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@coreynoemif3j29 Thanks for your reply. You asked lots of great questions, but answering them clearly will take time and I need to get back to grading papers. I'll reply more tonight during the WS game.

[@skrajpoot1664]

This is beautiful 🎉🎉🎉

[@Shiny-oq4in]

For changing world to better future You're welcome, "SENTENTIA OPTIMUM" waitng... It's waitng for learnig, it's waiting for spreading... The course that will inspire you...

[@trev1978]

Is this speaker a qualified Climate Scientist??! Give this talk to developing countries in Africa who still don’t have cheap reliable electricity for their homes, industries, schools and hospitals- just like we have had for decades. Temperature records are only reliable for last 100 years. Here in Australia we’re currently in the coldest winter in 30 years!!

[@RobertMJohnson]

finally a thinker

[@tomgreene1843]

Bad scientific deductions here not to mention bad psychology of guilt trips ....accurate models ....where did ee hear that elsewhere ?....useful models ..yes.

[@vajona2495]

Imagine if there are easily accessible databases which show all historical weather data. The average temperature around the world has not risen, the world is not about to end, nor should we be concerned. Live in Reality

[@sergiv5613]

We should definitely be concerned. Not of rising sea levels or extreme weather, but of corporations who are taking control with the help of world governments. All these carbon taxes are designed to artificially prop of "green" companies while crippling our best source of cheap energy.

[@ERNESTORUIZ-hq4qg]

Climate change can easily have and affect in people causing people to act unpredictable very angry and sometimes even violence temper the best way is to keep it calm as much as possible if you feel very angry get a refreshment seat down for a while this will help you to lose control but just always keep in mind that climate change is the reasons what people mood change

[@peterbecskei]

I think No Hope... nothing changes ...

[@jimthain8777]

Actually things are changing right now. Keep watching and you will see change over just the next couple of years that you would not have imagined possible at all just 5 years ago.

[@StarwaterCWS]

CO2 is Green Energy.

[@janeswitzer4713]

Oh, the climate's gonna change alright. Take a peek at 2 Peter 3:10. And guess Who's in control of it. Here's a hint: not humans.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

Cute, but speaking as a long-term Sunday School teacher and university researcher, that's bad theology and worse science. God gives us free will, which means we are free to screw up the planet if we want to, and quite obviously we have. Second, thousands of research studies and 40+ years of quite accurate climate models prove that our emissions caused ~98% of all global warming (and resulting climate disruption) since 1900. Every nation on Earth has signed off in agreement with that fact.

[@kevinguyan522]

Globally planned, regionally organized and locally executed, planetary actions.

[@bishaljungjzmagar3262]

[@piccadelly9360]

Very nice lecture and it's all true , it's simple to solve the problem but it's not comforting . We have to leave consumption behind us if we want to have fresh air and water .If you take the example of Amish people you don't have to worry about climate change But the easiest way to contribute to climate change is not to have kids and you have done a lot

[@jimthain8777]

While you're right about consumption, that last part is not true. While it is folly to have too many children, a husband and wife having 2 children only replace themselves without adding. How do we stop people from having more children than that? We make them wealthier, we make it so their children will survive, that's what we need to do.

[@sipa436]

The question no one wants to talk about is population, there are arguments it's not about population as we can still squeeze the worlds population on to say the land mass of Denmark. This is missing the point as if we had less then half the exciting population we would do half the amount of damage to our planet. There are to many of us and we are living to long. The wildlife around us is not living longer, we are a parasite on the earth and just like any parasite if there are to many of them the host dies. We need to discuss the population issue not just the temperature of the plant.

[@wgj4813]

It was only 10 000 years ago that you could walk from england to denmark direct. The rising sea levels would have caused an immense catastrophy to the inhabitants of the Dogger Bank. Midway. Now there is a wind farm planted into the water called the North Sea on their farm land. All caused by global warming but it was totally natural and the only solution was retreat. Man must adapt and not try to be King Canute.

[@OrangeRoses6]

This huge dose of hope is sadly a huge dose of hopium. We are locked in regardless - yes we can try SRM via cloud brightening, diamond dust, covering 1/3 the equatorial region with mirrors, but we do not have the tech for this, and the tech that we have 'sitting on a shelf' is not to scale. Right now, the money is on the war machine. What we can do is walk lightly - reduce our energy footprint and show love & compassion to all living things. Cheesy? Maybe, but the alternative offered here is to try to OD on hopium so we can continue BAU.

[@bertieborough]

Beautifully said and I hope for a future, but I know that it is too late. Our time has come and gone, while we were asleep at the wheel. It is not this planet's first mass extinction, or even its second but once we are gone nature will try again, so, there will always be a future -- just not one that Humanity will be a part of, or most of the biodiversity that currently exists.