The Inconvenient Truth About Climate Science - Steven Koonin

[@jjrider6758]

The UK government quietly commissioned a study by two UK universities (University of Derby and I believe University College London) on what steps would need to be taken for the UK (producing just over 1% of global CO2 emissions) to reach their 'Net-Zero' by 2050 target. The study showed that it would require a ban on ALL forms of fossil fuel use, an end to agriculture in the UK, a ban on meat and Dairy products, a ban on ALL air travel and ALL shipping, (Both import and export, with ALL UK airports being closed..) a maximum of 3 pieces of clothing per person, per year, A ban on all forms of personal transport, 'need only' access to public transport, and extremely limited energy supplies for the general population - In short, the end of the UK.

[@adolfhitlerowicztrocki495]

Of course all those bans do not apply to the politicians and the oligarchs. And Sadiq Khan.

[@stevemitchell4914]

Seems like their going to give it a go. 😂

[@pierreballester5226]

As a French I should feel okay with your conclusion 😂 but seriously w they have lost thei minds.

[@jjrider6758]

@@pierreballester5226 Absolument mon ami !.. Mais ne sois pas complaisant, parce que si Monsieur Macron et ses amis du projet Mondialiste obtiennent se qu'ils veulent, la meme approche pour la France et tout de l'Europe.. Bon chance (et d'esole pour mon Francais mauvais !..)

[@canacmay2152]

Sounds like the program from the W.E.F under the control of fascist Trudeau and Klaus

[@robinhood4640]

Some of us spend our life trying to overcome our biases. Others spend their life being ignorant of the fact that they are biased.

[@stevemitchell4914]

Climate change. The new Religion. I’m a heretic .

[@parvent3556]

To the gallows... :)

[@bradzimmerman3171]

I don't believe that either, I don't like or having anything to do with fake information, I want the truth, no christian drivel

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Religion is based on blind faith without evidence. Climate change science is based on a mountain of empirical evidence gleaned from the over 350,000 climate studies published in the last fifty years. Big difference.

[@nicfarrow]

It's global warming and it is here, this year, as never before. Switch you A/C off for five minutes and get honest.

[@jeanbrown8295]

Me too

[@mikedavis8660]

Very clear presentation which sets straight many of the blatantly incorrect or misleading statements often heard from mainstream sources. Amazed there are so few views.

[@mrunning10]

Because Steven Koonin is a PAID liar for the fossil fuel industry. All clear on "why so few views?"

[@nicfarrow]

BS. Just BS, and you KNOW it. Why pretend otherwise.

[@davebboggs2000]

Mostly just emotional manipulation bs

[@mikedavis8660]

I will assume the BS is what the mainstream sources put out. One may not agree with Steve Koonin but you can hardly call his views BS. Would be interesting to see how someone justifies that statement if so..

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@mikedavis8660It's bs because it contradicts the alarmist narrative...

[@mastersclassfitness3359]

This man is shockingly honest. That's a rare quality today.

[@mrunning10]

TOTAL DISCLOSURE but not from Koonin: PAID by BP. A God Damned LIAR.

[@thebritishbookworm2649]

I highly recommend his book. On my second read and it's like reading if the first time again. Excellent book and to all those who say he's cherry picking to adhod attack him it's really sad that's all they can do to try to discourage reading it. It's an excellent read.

[@MrJohnmr]

I agree an excellent read.

[@kellandhutchence914]

@@MrJohnmr Seconded!

[@mikeofallon]

Excellent interview. Complex cycles -- There were forests on Ellesmere Island millions of years ago. There were farms on Greenland 1000 years ago. I distrust those "experts" who never even mention the Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages til around 1800, the huge complex influence of ocean currents, the absorption & release of CO2 by the oceans (which has been studied since 1930's). Also the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is basically agreed upon by both alarmists & deniers, and it keeps global avg temps about 55 degrees F warmer than if we had no greenhouse effect. The big divide is caused by PROJECTIONS by climate models, which are "assisted" by manual input of parameters which are adjusted so that the roughly 30 models pretty much agree. Since 1970, those models have all been extremely wrong on 10-year predictions of global temps. Let's keep learning from real climate physicists. We're wasting 10's of $Billions on nonsense & causing great anxiety, which seems to be the goal.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

14 of 17 of our earliest models have been quite accurate, according to a joint assessment by NASA, MIT and UC Berkeley. Those models diverge only from UAH satellite data, which is far less accurate than ground-based and balloon-based temperature readings, which the models do align with.

[@mikeofallon]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 "earliest models" - when? "quite accurate"? All on the high side? Manual parameter adjustments? Collaboration? 10-year outlook? Isn't it true that starting around 2010, scientists have been invited to submit papers to explain the anomalies / differences between predictions and empirical results? Is it still true that none suggested a problem with the models?

[@davidherdman9798]

Don't forget that in the late 70's Leonard Nimoy warned us about the coming ice age. Global warming? Just the latest in large scale scare tactics trying to separate us from our hard-earned money.

[@traceykays433]

Well said milk....

[@lo1234-w9r]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Models? To hell with models, I agree with Mike, start with the historical evidence.

[@northerncaptain855]

Here in Maine 1000’s of acres of productive forest are being clear cut for solar and wind projects. While this doesn’t seem to make much sense it does make the the climate cultists feel like they are doing well. If these folks are serious (or at least logical) about reducing CO2 they’d be pushing for nuclear power.

[@jackdeniston59]

They want US dead. Not themselves of course, just me.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

I know of no solar farm that rivals what the paper companies do to our forests. They've been ravaging the forests here for as long as I can remember.

[@woodspirit98]

Trees and forests are free and each grown tree absorbs 24 lbs of CO2 from the atmosphere. So using fossil fuels to cut the down to replace with panels and windmills which require huge amounts of mined minerals and fossil fuels to create is insane.

[@deanl6613]

Long term, those areas that have been cleared are much more susceptible to damage from hurricanes....follow the money, the decision had nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with cashing in on the hysteria

[@Ln-cq8zu]

Loads of subsidies for green energy, making millionaires and billionaires, but no money for the dumb climate activists cos they are just useful idiots being used by the billionaires oligarchical class!

[@asky6670]

C02 doesn't influence temperature it never has, C02 rises after Temperature increases and not the other way around.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Thanks for citing the fossil fuel industry's favorite propaganda meme. It's a little lie of omission. In earth's past, Milankovitch Cycles (periodic changes in earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession) concentrated more sunlight at high latitudes, which melted ice, which in turn allowed the release of CO2 and methane. The slight warming these cycles initiated were soon overcome by greenhouse gases, which went on to LEAD warming for thousands of years. So yes, in the past, warming LED CO2, but only briefly. Today, however, all three Milankovitch Cycles are shifted toward cooling phases and are responsible for ZERO release of CO2. The excess of CO2 that's been building since the Industrial Revolution is from combusted fossil fuels and human activity, and we know that with certainty via analysis of the ratios of carbon 12, 13 and 14 in the atmosphere. CO2 from combusted fuels has its own isotopic signature, easily distinguished from natural CO2. THAT CO2, ANTHROPOGENIC CO2, is leading warming, not the other way around. Understand that the fossil fuel industry outspends climate change proponents 27 to 1 in spreading its messaging, which includes funding nearly 100 climate denial front groups, think tanks and websites, according to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace. That messaging includes memes like the one you just posted and many more. Always vet your sources before you believe them.

[@jean-pierreduboucheron6838]

There's a deep connection in the human mind between "god" and nature/weather. Only "god" can effect things on this scale. This leads many to not be able to entertain the idea that human activity has created this phenomenon. That's why we need videos like this to keep us from worrying too much. Good job! This should be mandatory watching for every Sunday school class.

[@standTrueNorthStrongandFree]

a superb imparting of climate knowledge In the name of our foreseeable future, with gratitude, thank you Steven and Charles

[@evets1709]

Actually yes .... superb half truths and misdirections

[@parvent3556]

Bottom line is this: we get to die either from extreme heat or from extreme cold - choose one. Of course, it's 100% certain that if we escape death from these 2 extremes, we'll die from old age.

[@wheel-man5319]

😂

[@xbioman7882]

That's an easy choice. Eventually the Earth will be consumed by the sun as it goes through the (currently assumed) lifecycle of a star. So I vote for extreme heat. Fortunately, I and no one reading this post will be here to experience it.

[@parvent3556]

and you're assuming 'someone' IS actually reading you post LOL @@xbioman7882

[@jamescasey3760]

This guy is great. Weather is day to day. Climate is over 35 year period. Even if you question climate change you're cancelled. Who are these scientists when they say "the science says". Im so tired of students asking me in geography classif they're going to die because if climate change. I just have tonlet them know about latitudes altitudes and ocean currents. Yes we are warmer but when the spokesperson from the UN said the seas and oceans are boiling I began to move away from UN climate speak.

[@mrunning10]

WRONG, 35 years? WTF did you get that? Fox News??

[@coachduke9323]

@@mrunning10 Wtf you talking about ? You think it’s shorter ? Or longer than that? Claiming Fox News is lazy considering you offered no time line or source.

[@mrunning10]

WTF YOU talking about ? You think it's 35 years? Quick, don't google it, that's cheating, what is the periodicity of the co2 concentration of our atmosphere over the past One Million Fucking YEARS? (you and your ignorant "35 years") @@coachduke9323

[@jamescasey3760]

Look it up. Climate periods are from a 30 to 35-year period. This is a known fact 💯

[@jamescasey3760]

@mrunning10 you are exactly the kind of person that accepts info and facts with nothing to back it up. Weather is day to day......climate is 30 to 35 years end of .......FACT. nothing to do with fox

[@antalt940]

The most important point made during this video was that whatever happens CO2 production and CO2 levels will keep on rising for political and economic reasons. Even if the hysterical eco-activists could convince everybody that they are right it would change nothing - so they might as well do us all a favour and just shut-up.

[@mikeellement1567]

Climate scientists started talking about man made climate change decades ago. They knew the longer we did nothing to alleviate the problem, the harder and more expensive it would be when [or if] we finally took steps to reduce the damage. So we ignore and deny what the climate scientists are telling us for 30 or 40 years, and then say it's economically and politically unfeasible to do anything about it. Basically we said, and are saying, screw the next generations. Our politicians were more interested in getting reelected than in solving real problems. And we abetted them.

[@fredricthomas6654]

Amen!

[@peter-l4l5j]

earth first, and earth liberation front. ELF firebombed a ranger station and logging equipment dealer in the day. and that was before gore lost in florida and started his new gig.

[@jameswilliamsgb]

The planet has been getting warmer since the last Ice Age - no big surprise there

[@darrenwithers3628]

Do you want a gold star?

[@evets1709]

Can you pick some cherries for me too please Captain Obvious?

[@agj.7331]

So why don't we stop this B/S before it gets well out of hand ?, Great interiew with is top man, I mean both of you for making this issue more clear and hope young people see through this crap, Thanks Gretta

[@sylvester2294]

The big point is that we are scaring our young people...deliberately...

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Actually we're informing them of what the science actually says, not what oil industry shills like Koonin try to mislead them about.

[@sylvester2294]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Oil industry shill??? Do not think so...Name calling is the worst intellectual exercise . I did that when I was 8 years old...learned better...!!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@sylvester2294 "Name calling is the worst intellectual exercise," unless, of course, the name calling is accurate. Koonin is a former employee of British Petroleum and has been steeped in oil industry culture. That's not enough to impugn his opinions, I concede, but coupled with his cherry-picked data, lies of omission and verbal sleight of hand, it is. How else should we view him when he says there's nothing to worry about sea level rise when the sea has risen four inches since 1992, with a rate that has DOUBLED since then? Both NASA altimeter data and worldwide tide gauges agree on the numbers. Different methodologies, same numbers. Or... ...when high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000, according to NOAA? When even New England, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, has seen flooding increase 140%? When Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads? When Houston, Louisiana and New York have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works? ...when heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA? ...when marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern? ...when hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade since 1980, according to NOAA and a Taiwanese study on typhoons? ...when wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service? ...when extreme precipitation events are increasing steadily, with some parts of the world seeing a near doubling of Biblical rainfalls, according to the EPA? ...when the incidence of drought, drought intensity and drought duration have increased around the world, according to the IPCC? ...when major environmental disasters from around the world from the years 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years, according to the UN? ...when the cod fishery off New England collapsed, due in part to warming waters? ...when the shrimp fishery off New England collapsed for the same reasons? ...when tick and mosquito-borne diseases have expanded into places they;ve never been before, solely due to warming?

[@sylvester2294]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Until there is a sit down debate...I chose to be skeptical...I consider the bad actors on the left to be the U.N., World Economic forum,CFR, all prominent media( mostly on the same page) ..and others... I do not trust the science when it is not debatable..... We all remember Covid and the lies around it...and the Jab. I always thought Love was the most powerful emotion....now I think it has been surpassed by Hate and Fear...and I think it is demonstrable that those emotions are on the left .. I tend to think that the left does protest too much.

[@yankee2666]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 You've been brainwashed.

[@frankknight7968]

Another great Koonin talk. As for Michael Mann, he is a pathological liar. He should be sued by this great scientist.

[@robertmarmaduke9721]

James Hansen made a $MILLION pïmping for Climate Chains, although he had to retire _retroactively_ for violating the Hatch Act. Michael Mann saw Hansen make a $MILLION, and saw Bill McKibben make $10MILLION, so what's a little hockey stick? I laugh that he had to claim, The dog ate my hard-drive!

[@rickgillis1613]

Mikey Mann was in a Canadian courtroom, well his suit against Tim Ball was. long story short . little mikey didn't show up & testify, because perjury is illegal in Canadian courts. So Tim Ball won, Mikey's hockey stick lie was proven in a Canadian court & the IPCC's hero mikey has faded into the background & big news & the poli-ticks AKA elected phonies have ignored & swept this under the table for their own political agenda which is to enrich themselves, scare the gullible, which is usually the majority & keep what all politicians strive for... a population of us Against them ....& our elected leaders can save us & show us the way forward ! if you are stupid enough to believe them you deserve all the misery coming to you.

[@vladomatoski1634]

Michael Mann is a deceiving psychopath

[@severnsea]

I think the message is getting through, albeit very slowly, but this crazy, irrational way we're dealing with things now, almost in a state of panic but for no apparent reason when you look at the facts, needs to change before we can progress. Exactly as you say there are a lot of insults flying around for no reason other than their opinion is different from our own but with no sense or reason behind it. I noticed long ago that if you ask a question that they cannot answer, like why haven't the sea levels risen where I live for example, they tend to go quiet or go pick on somebody else.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Absolute sea level has risen four inches since 1993, according to NASA, and the rate of rise has doubled since then. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. It's why Houston, New York and Louisiana have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works. Would you even notice a four inch rise over a span of 30 years? Not everybody would. When you measure sea level between time periods you have to make sure that all variables are the same. Is the sun and moon in the exact same positions? Is the atmospheric pressure the same? Is the water temperature the same? Are offshore winds the same? All of these affect tide height. Are you measuring the exact point of high tide for both time periods? You also need to check the moon's 18-year nodal phase, which also affects sea level. Ditto the status of El Nino and La Nina. Where do you live? You may live in an area of tectonic uplift or glacial rebound. Sweden, for example, is land that is rising so fast that it appears that sea level is RECEDING.

[@-A-lm5xb]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 According to a clip on NASA's own channel, since they started using satellites to measure sea level there has been no evidence of any discernable change at all. Certainly hasn't risen where I live in my lifetime.

[@andrewrourke9519]

The moral of the climate change story is; "believe it when you see it."

[@nicfarrow]

And we have temperature records being broken every day all around the world. Fires last year in Australia Europe and Russia like never before, glaciers exposing things never seen before; it goes on and on. And then there s this bunch of people who just want to believe the lies pumped out by big oil and their lot. Your children likely will not survive this.

[@HerbisRGreen]

6:10 "Crop yields have gone up. A lot! In part due to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow. In part due to the fact that the growing seasons are a little longer an they used to be..." - CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't merely "help plants grow." Without CO2 in the atmosphere plants don't exist. CO2 is absolutely vital for trees and plants to survive. Every adult should have learned about photosynthesis in high school biology. Carbon dioxide is essential for life to exist on our planet. When ambient atmospheric CO2 level are higher, trees and plants grow to be bigger, they produce bigger fruits, vegetables, herbs, or nuts, and they produce more of them. Carbon dioxide is so vital for trees and plants that garden centers, grow shops, and hydroponic shops sell CO2 generators, modulators, and sensors. Greenhouse and indoor gardeners/farmers increase the ambient CO2 levels in their growing environments to anywhere between 650-1800 PPM (parts per million). The current level of ambient atmospheric CO2 is about 420 PPM. This means means there are four hundred twenty carbon dioxide particles/molecules found in every one million particles/molecules of the atmosphere. 420 ppm = 420/1,000,000 = 0.00042 = 0.042%. Carbon dioxide makes up less than one-tenth of one percent of Earth's ambient atmosphere. Trees and pants are starving and suffocating because CO2 levels are so low. If CO2 levels drop below 300 PPM, trees and plants will not produce anything edible. They would barely be alive. Without trees and plants, humans do not survive.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

CO2 is great for plants, up to a point, but the warming that accompanies CO2 actually hurts crop yields. See CLIMATE CHANGE CUT GLOBAL FARMING PRODUCTIVITY 21% SINCE THE 1960s, a study by Cornell University. See also SEVERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVE CROP LOSSES TRIPLED OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN EUROPE, a study in the June 10, 2021 issue of Environmental Research Letters. Heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves wither and decimate crops. At 104 degrees, in fact, all photosynthesis stops. Many seeds won't even germinate at that temperature. “For every day of a heat wave, you’re looking at a proportionate decrease in yield,” says USDA plant biologist Carl Bernarcchi. So if a plant typically goes through a 30-day reproductive development phase, and it experiences three days of extreme heat during that time, a farmer will see a 10 percent decrease in yield. Global warming alone increased crop insurance losses by $27 billion over the last 27 years, according to a Stanford University study. Think about what Phoenix just experienced, with over 110 degree temperatures for 31 days straight. Now think about the nearly 2 billion people in the world who still depend on subsistence farming for their livelihoods, many of these already in over-heated, dry areas of the world. The 2010 heatwave in Russia decimated 25% of the season's wheat crops with losses topping $12 billion. Heatwaves and drought often go hand in hand. The incidence of drought, drought intensity and drought duration have also increased worldwide, according to the IPCC, further diminishing crop yield. Extreme precipitation events too are increasing, according to the EPA, with some events wiping out entire seasons of farm crops. Wildfire seasons have also expanded by over a month over the last forty years, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The area of Canada burned by wildfires has doubled since 1970. The western United States has also seen huge increases in burn acreage. None of these are good for crops. A greenhouse is not the outside world. In a greenhouse, we can control for temperature, wind, water, and insects. In the outside world, not so much. "Plants of earth will all die without CO2" is the fossil fuel industry's favorite propaganda meme. With over 8 billion people burning up gigatons of resources and thousands of volcanoes and trillions of dying organisms emitting endless CO2 every year, there isn't the slightest danger that CO2 will ever drop below 400ppm again, let alone a level that would endanger plants.

[@censorthis-uu6cc]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 CO2 levels will have no practical significance for farmers yields whatsoever compared to bans on fertilizer, high energy prices, and extra taxes that will inevitably lead farmers that are already on the edge financially to stop farming altogether when they can no longer make a profit. The detrimental effects of 'green' policies will lead to famine long before any supposed effects caused by CO2 - ask Sri Lanka.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Bans of fertilizer with phosphorous and nitrogen have nothing to do with clean energy or climate change. That's an entirely different subject. Wind and solar are the CHEAPEST energy sources on earth, so energy prices aren't going to stop farmers. The Inflation Reduction Act that supercharges America's transition to clean energy is not increasing the average American's taxes, not even by a penny. (However, Biden passed legislation that will force corporations who currently pay ZERO in taxes to pay a minimum 15%.) Wind and solar are actually allowing thousands of farmers to stay in business, by giving them reliable, yearly lease payments for use of their property, with crops grown between the installations. Sri Lanka's economic pain has nothing to do with clean energy. In addition to the hardship caused by their outright fertilizer ban were years of irresponsible borrowing by their government, combined with losses caused by Covid lockdowns to Sri Lanka’s tourism industry, which all drained the country’s foreign exchange reserves. Consequently, the country was unable to make payments on its debt or import essential goods like food and gasoline.

[@annebell565]

7min ... if you want your bulbs to grow well in spring & the autumn/fall weather isn't cold yet, put them in the fridge under the freezer for a few weeks, then plant ... works for tulips, dahlias, daffodils ... (pesky glow-ball warming ...)

[@boxsterbenz4059]

it's not about saving lives or making the world more equitable. to do that the only source of energy that one could possibly use is fossil fuels. there is much more to this than the CO2 argument.

[@johnsmythe6564]

Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there's immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it's plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don't understand school child science. : "Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland July 11/23 since it’s first spewing of volcanic ash, has in just four days, negated every single effort you have made in the past five years to control C02 emissions on our planet. All of you of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress-it’s the vital chemical compound that every plant requires to grow and synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know … it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius Hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only 2 squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day riding your bicycle, replacing all of your .50 cent light bulbs with eco friendly bulbs…..Well, all of these things you’ve done have gone down the tube in just 4 days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just 4days - Yes, just 4days - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 48 active volcanoes spewing out this crud at any one time - every day! I don’t want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all it’s years on earth ! Yes folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it………. Just remember that your Government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus “human caused” climate change scenario.

[@mrunning10]

Still trying to spread that crap about "after 50 parts per million" read that in your Bible did you?

[@johnsmythe6564]

It never ceases to amaze me at the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the acquisition of useful knowledge@@mrunning10

[@marekwalczak3556]

UN should learn to listen to real data NOT to computerized models !

[@mrunning10]

What the fuck is a "real model?"

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

99% of climate science has nothing to do with models. But 14 of 17 of our earliest models have been quite accurate, according to a joint assessment by NASA and MIT, so why wouldn't the UN consider them?

[@mrunning10]

Because it is Steven Koonin's job as paid for by British Petroleum to spread doubt regarding manmade climate change. @@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

[@careyseay5207]

Steve Koonin is a very smart and amazingly courageous man.

[@darrenwithers3628]

No he isn't

[@cynthiacook1646]

@@darrenwithers3628 Just because he doesn't fit the typical narrow minded and ignorant worldview of most woke typical democrat liberals.

[@jimkarlock]

GET LOST APPLE @@darrenwithers3628

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

@@darrenwithers3628 Yes, he is.

[@PoppiesAndPride]

HERE IN GB WE HAVE THE HEATING ON

[@mrunning10]

So the fuck what? And what form of energy supplies that heat? and you expect the price to go down if it's from fossil fuels? Wake UP

[@TheShorterboy]

So you come out of the little ice age and the temp goes up, well duh

[@GodOfThunder6789]

We should all be alarmed. It’s true that we humans seem so unadaptable now that any slight/normal/constant change to climate will end us. We aren’t built like the millions of generations before us. So please everyone, head to the nearest cliff and get in line.

[@mrunning10]

why not get off your ass and do something to help fix this?

[@wheel-man5319]

Humans are supremely adaptable. Look at how much of the globe a species that originated in the tropics occupies now If I could give advice that would be heard, I'd say: 'Stop worrying so much about the impact of human activity and concentrate on accessing space.'

[@Guitar6ty]

The Elephant in the room is the 1% that owns 90% of the land and wealth.

[@mrunning10]

How much they own near the poles? And by the fucking way your percentages are WRONG.

[@howebrad4601]

I am also hopeful that someday more rational and measured thought will prevail and will see this for what it is, but not before inflicting massive loss of wealth, liberty and huge opportunity cost on the public, setting us back from what could have been achieved absent this ill advised path

[@noelburke6224]

This guy should talk to Professor Richard Lindzen,Professor Ian Plimer, professor William Happer,Dr Patrick Moore

[@noelburke6224]

This guy gas been turned

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@noelburke6224I'm sure he has. They've been guests at steamboat springs at the same time.

[@mariomarquinezotalora6815]

do not expect anything , it s all politics , not science

[@philoshea4766]

⁠

[@tobyhdr]

Thank you both for holding this discussion!

[@mrunning10]

HORSESHIT. Total disclosure but not from Koonin: PAID by BP to write his "book." A LIAR keeping the "debate" and confusion going. @MrJohnmr

[@jameswebb4593]

I can remember the Fogs or Smogs we used to get every winter in the 40's and 50's in England. Houses belching coal smoke through the chimneys , climate wasn't a topic in those days . personal health was more important . After that bad situation had improved , the climate scientist stepped in. England within a few years would be suffering a new Ice Age , according to some Canadians . When that failed to materialize their next prediction was by the next century , Southern England will be basking in Mediterranean temperatures . Sorry just more pseudo science rubbish. For the past sixty years I have been listening to that B.S. I didn't believe it then , and I don't now .

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Are the scientists full of rubbish or is your memory of what they actually said rubbish? No consensus of mainstream climate scientists ever predicted an imminent Ice Age. Outliers? Yes. Crackpots? Yes. But a majority of mainstream scientists? Absolutely not. Super important to understand the difference. Google MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 89, No. 9 (SEPTEMBER 2008), pp. 1325-1337 to see just how egregiously fossil fuel industry propaganda has flipped the narrative on this very important history.

[@deanl6613]

Canada? Really? Baxter and Mitchell were Americans

[@nicfarrow]

Yep, get your head stuck underground as far as you can and keep pretending - Oh, and keep spouting your filthy lies.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@deanl6613From across the pond anyway...

[@darrenwithers3628]

Just admit you don't believe in actual science ffs

[@jonemerton1555]

Can we give a copy of this book to every member of the UK Government with instructions to read it. Perhaps, just perhaps we may then have leaders we can trust. I did say perhaps ......

[@mariomarquinezotalora6815]

can they read?

[@hannsjurgenhodann6268]

LoL … Steven Koonin has forgotten to mention the principal causal factor. When he says that during the past 120 years in which global average temperature has increased by1.3º C the world has prospered, the number of humans has gone up by a factor of 5, and lifespan went from 32 years to 72 years, and this because (or despite of) global temperatures goin up, he conveniently forgot the mention that only increasing ‘fossil-fuel-use’ has made that possible. He also says the crop yields have gone up a lot, but sadly fails to mention that now they are going down.

[@mrunning10]

And he, even with his PhD, has forgotten that the ever increasing yields were due to fossil fuel process (Bosch) of fixing nitrogen. Koonin is HORSESHIT. Paid by BP to "do something" about the "climate narrative."

[@ryuoki1]

It is not a difficult concept. First and foremost, humans in general, have very short memories. Second, humans arose out of the most recent major ice age, and we began our ascent during it's ending, which right now as of this moment, we are seeing the last bits. Just because in the short time humans have been here, the polar caps are frozen and cold, doesn't mean that they have always been that way. Just in our experience. Science already knows, Antarctica had life on it before. Just because it is like this now, doesn't mean it has always been this way. The planet is going back to its own equilibrium, and I do not remember the planet asking humans if we like it like this, colder or warmer.... this planet could care less. It's been going through cycles long before us, it will continue long after us. Humans just have exceptionally high hubris of themselves.

[@mrunning10]

Including all of the CFOs of the Oil and Gas companies.

[@darrenwithers3628]

Tell people you don't have a clue without saying it. The equilibrium temperature of the planet is lower than the current surface temperature which is increasing. How can the planet be going back to it's equilrium temperature when it's moving the opposite way?

[@ryuoki1]

@@darrenwithers3628 Simple. We don't know what the equilibrium is. If you actually understood what I said you would understand that. We have no clue exactly what the temperature was 500 million years ago, because humans didn't exist and as such the only historical documentation is in the dirt. And what we do know is, this planet had far greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere than we do today without a single bit of human activity burning fossil fuels. As far as we know, this planet actually sits in equilibrium at higher temperatures than we are experiencing now. It was in fact much hotter during the Roman empire as well as the Egyptian. Therefore I don't buy into the climate Hysteria being peddled. You are more than welcome to embrace the stone age lifestyle but I don't see anything catastrophic occurring yet.

[@ryuoki1]

@@darrenwithers3628 Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the point when snowball Earth was the norm for 4.5 billion years. I guess we should go back to a permanent ice age since warm weather is so undesirable, and back Bill Gates desires to pump reflective materials into the atmosphere to cool us off. Just because it was comfortable when humans started thinking they controlled everything doesn't mean we really do. This planet has suffered far worse than anything we have done to it so far. We do more damage with our cities and roads than pumping a little CO2 back into the atmosphere where it came from in the first place.

[@tomfreemanorourke1519]

Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365. The false understanding is that "science is settled" it is not settled, it is pure speculations, assumptions and outright lies were it suits those who exploit fear.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

ELEVEN separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions publicly endorse the consensus findings, which is why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC. In 2021, Cornell University audited the over 88000 climate change studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving global warming. It is as "settled" as science ever is, just as it's settled that the earth is round and orbits the sun. By contrast, you just listened to a former employee of British Petroleum, a theoretical physicist who is not a climate scientist and who has been debunked by those who are. Take his words words with a grain of salt.

[@4TIMESAYEAR]

We've gotten ice and snow on many a Thanksgiving. So bad I didn't make it to the celebration. The one week of Thanksgiving, we had ice all week. Come on man.

[@brianrajala7671]

PS - lectures by Dr Will Happer of Princeton U, Dr Patrick Moore of Simon Fraser University, and Dr Esterbrook of Western Washington University also provide food for thought on this subjrct.

[@wheel-man5319]

Ian Plimer too.

[@Catcat65]

Excellent discussion, thank you both.

[@adolfhitlerowicztrocki495]

Sure...Who has an authority to tell what the temperature *should* be?

[@chrisruss9861]

A question worthwhile for Steve to answer: What would be the time frame for a steady relatively undisruptive energy transition? Growing numbers of environmentalists see the tragedy of biodiversity loss for wind and solar farms and new powerlines. They are becoming more receptive to nuclear power.

[@wheel-man5319]

If we were willing to go all in on nuclear power, at least 150 years.

[@paulg451]

​@@wheel-man5319and that timeframe is nothing in the grand scheme of things so let's do it. But Germany have shut down their nuclear plants so we're up against morons

[@TheLastOilMan]

Sea level change is often due to land height variation. BTW most of the Co2 that ever existed has been naturally sequestered by life. We now call it limestone and dolomite ( and a little coal and HC). The column in the M East is 70% limestone & dolomite.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

You're referring to relative sea level. Absolute sea level , by contrast, is measured from the middle of the ocean, unrelated to land subsidence or uplift, by NASA satellite. Since 1993, absolute sea level has risen four inches, and the rate of rise has nearly doubled.

[@mrunning10]

OK, and you don't think a modeler KNOWS this and "normalizes" the change to take this OUT of the model so what REMAINS is the change in sea-level due to the co2 in the atmosphere Where's your PhD from? Trump University??

[@boxsterbenz4059]

the world is getting warmer because we are coming out of an ice age! what do we expect? the cycles continue.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The Little Ice Age was not an Ice Age, little or otherwise. It was a period of moderate cooling experienced in SOME parts of the world, not all, and never at the same time. The earth "comes out of Ice Ages" with temperature increases of about a single degree every thousand years. We're warming over ten times faster than that.

[@antalt940]

Really? Do some research into the settlement of Greenland a few hundred years ago. Have a think why it was named Greenland and not Whiteland.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@antalt940 Eric the Red named Greenland "Green" in the hopes of attracting new settlers, not because it was green.

[@antalt940]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 That's a story passed down through the Icelandic Sagas. A part of Greenland was farmed for a few centuries and then became too cold to support farming and so was abandoned. Those who tried to make a go of it died out. Archeologists have found insects in the former settlements that are found only in warmer climates than exist in modern day Greenland (which would have been green where it was settled and farmed).

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@antalt940 Greenland was "green" during the MWP only in pockets along the shore, not across the entire expanse. It would more appropriately be called "Whiteland" when measured as a whole. More salient, the MWP was neither global nor globally synchronous, as other parts of the world were actually colder then. Today's warming, by contrast, is happening around the entire world at the same time.

[@KAZVorpal]

Greenland is MUCH colder and more covered with ice than it was a thousand years ago. That's why Erik the Red named it Greenland. It is melting now, because it accumulated so much EXTRA ice during the Little Ice Age from 1250-1850.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Greenland was only green in pockets along the shore then, not inland. Greenland hasn't been an ice-free tundra for hundreds of thousands of years. The Little Ice Age wasn't an Ice Age, little or otherwise. Coming out of an Ice Age, the earth warms by about a single degree every thousand years. We're warming 20 times faster than that, due to rising CO2.

[@neilbush9873]

The warming has more to do with totaly removing ground cover ie trees ,then adding black bitumen and concrete to the serfice this has had a large effect lowering rainfall. I learned about this in primary school. Adequate rainfall is a big problem that makes people complain loudly especialy in the usa.

[@mrunning10]

no it doesn't, that does effect LOCALY, but not GLOBALLY. Try reading and fucking learning some more. You work for an Oil Lobby perhaps?

[@muxion]

Also, because of those heating effects in cities and burbs, we have to disregard temperature readings from those areas, they are artificially high and do not reflect the actual climate.

[@mrunning10]

WRONG. For a fucking GLOBAL average ALL "readings" are used. And especially the cities, where the fuck do you think all that fucking ASPHALT and CONCRETE sources? "green energy?" @@muxion

[@shadowarcher2716]

Exact the same questions I always wanted to ask a competent scientist. Thanks for it.

[@mrunning10]

which question and which "competent scientist" do you remember?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Koonin isn't a climate scientist.

[@geoffmckeown4013]

That's just a dumb thing to say.

[@shadowarcher2716]

why?@@geoffmckeown4013

[@shadowarcher2716]

do you have one?@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

[@casitaverdeibiza2023]

An excellent and uplifting re-boot of climate science caos (also chaotic for the world populations). Weather always has been and always will be erratic! This is something we should all learn to accept! 💚

[@jimmww]

Excellent discussion. Cleaning the air of the products of combustion is absolutely necessary, but that does not include CO2, which is not a pollutant. In fact it is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and makes crops grow bigger and faster and resist drought. Humans exhale about 5 lbs of it per day. Plants use that and then we eat them. The US Navy submarines do not take measures against CO2 until it reaches 8,000 ppm, a level perhaps last seen in the Cambrian era, when animal life first appeared across the earth. Those alarmists deliberately ignore the historical and theoretical evidence that CO2 at these levels is not in control of climate and that we are not in control of CO2. This is evidenced in history, since in the last million years we have had 8 glaciations and 8 interglacials including this current, none of them preceded by a CO2 change. Indeed, in the last 550 million years, there has never been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change. The Holocene Optimum 9,000 years ago, about 2 C higher (CO2 280ppm), was not preceded by CO2 change. Cooling since then has been interrupted by the Minoan Warm, the Roman Warm, the Medieval Warm, and the current. Nor was the Little Ice Age preceded by CO2 change, in or out. Yes the correlation of temperature and CO2 is very good, about as good as that of sex with marriage. No causation in either case (unless you wish to posit that temperature changes cause CO2 changes, for which there is at least some evidence). Nor is there any theoretical evidence for AGW, following the discovery of the exponential decline of the GHG effect of CO2 by Arrhenius (50% of its GHG effect in the first 20 ppm), and the modern calculations (MODTRANS, U of Chicago) are now correct, predicting that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 3%. The nine major forcings, including CO2, make the changes as a vector force, with CO2 not a dominant factor at this time. Nor are we in control of CO2 (we produce less than 5% of the annual contribution to the atmosphere), and we note no effect on CO2 rise for 1929-1931 and for 2020, despite our decreases in output (30% in 1929-1931 and perhaps 17% of a much higher production in 2020). No, not the slightest effect on the languid rise of CO2. That latter greatly disappointed Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny who, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment: “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry (that 17% drop in output) might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not." Past predictions have been made inerrant by increasing the error bars as the years go by. Soon it may be impossible for them to be wrong even if the next glaciation begins? This is as discouraging as those parades of self-flagellants in the 14th century hoping to stop the progress of the Black Death.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that CO2 is indeed a "pollutant." Any substance that causes environmental damage can be assessed that way. CO2 in EXCESS causes warming that melts the icecaps, raises sea levels and high tide flooding, intensifies hurricanes, expands wildfire seasons, REDUCES crop yields (yes, REDUCES, according to Cornell University), and increases heatwaves, marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, extreme precipitation events, droughts, and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. High CO2 diminishes zinc, iron and protein in staple crops like wheat and rice, making them less nutritious for human consumption. And CO2 in a submarine? There is no greenhouse effect in a submarine, so the warming that high CO2 causes in the outside world obviously doesn't exist there and is irrelevant. Millions of years of proxy evidence show clearly that high CO2 and high temperatures go together. High CO2 in the past elevated temperatures to the point where all of the icecaps melted and not only flooded the world's coastal regions but created an entirely new ocean, known as the Western Interior Seaway, which wound thorugh western Canada and down into the United States as far inland as Kansas. (It's why you can find the fossils of sea creatures there today.) That kind of flooding would not be welcome today. Today the world's coastlines are home to over 660 major cities and thousands of towns and villages. 9000 years ago earth's axial tilt was 24 degrees and the the closest approach to the sun was during the northern hemisphere's summer, which would have maximized heating of the Northern Hemisphere with 0.2% more solar radiation. This extra radiation was augmented by continued loss of ice and therefore albedo, increasing heat absorption. No extra CO2 needed. However, CO2 did indeed rise before the Optimum. Along with the warming effects of the Milankovitch Cycles, It's how we emerged from the last Ice Age, and in fact every Ice Age the earth has experienced. .

[@nealorr5086]

In NYC last year on Thanksgiving the high was 54 and the low was 39. That's sweater weather. In NYC in 1977 on 11/24 the high was 52 and the low was 43. On neither day did it snow.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

What's your point?

[@JohnJ469]

Something very few speak about concerning Arctic sea ice is that more summer melting means more winter cooling. Arctic water freezes in winter because the heat is radiated into space. Assuming it freezes to an average depth of 1 metre then the freezing of 11 million square kilometres is freezing 11,000 cubic kilometres of ice. (11k km-3 melt and freeze on an annual cycle, remember that when someone tries to instil panic saying that 250 km-3 melted somewhere.) 50 years ago the difference between the min and max was about 7 million km-2 or 7k km-3. Today that figure is around 11k km-3 as I said. For this to happen then the Earth must radiate into space enough extra energy to freeze an extra 4,000 cubic kilometres of ice. It's a massive cooling effect.

[@rogerphelps9939]

I suggest anyone watching this looks up the profile of this man on Wikipedia. There you will see that he is not a climatologist and has been using long refuted arguments against climate change. Even his students criticise him. He is not an expert. It is disgraceful that this maverick is allowed to make waves here without being challenged by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

[@thewaronu8842]

Con text: "Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels." 1. "Mainly"? So what's the other change in climate called, that's not caused by human activities? 2. What's the official definition of weather, and at what point does weather turn inito climate?

[@wheel-man5319]

IOW we at alphabet, even though we have the motto, don't be evil, support and push the narrative of the marxian UN.

[@TheJeffcurran]

Best advice. Don't trust anybody. Find out for yourself. The data is there. Learn how to find it and understand it. Draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to anybody with a vested interest in propagating a narrative. My biggest concern is that governments will enact policies that harm us, and then they will enact further policies that prevent us from having an influence on all of these policies.

[@mrunning10]

Like what "policies?" Causing harm how? Putting some fucking oil companies in the financial red? Bud, The Oil Will End, they are ALL going under. Get a Grip.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

What policies are going to harm us? Cleaning up the air and reducing lung and heart disease deaths worldwide? Adopting cleaner and CHEAPER energy sources? Adopting EVs which are already BETTER than gasoline cars? Last year the International Monetary Fund published a study that showed that switching from coal to clean energy alone will save the world $78 trillion. Where's the harm?

[@mariojorge9529]

Thank you very much!

[@kurtdanielson993]

Luckily, climate insanity is not in my family so we don't fight about that.

[@gianfrancobenetti-longhini8192]

I became interested in climate when my father made me do a year on the family farm, and I find this presentation very valid.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Have you fact-checked Koonin? You should.

[@muxion]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Please suggest a non-left leaning "fact check" organization.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

A NEW BOOK MANAGES TO GET CLIMATE SCIENCE BADLY WRONG, Scientific American. Koonin says sea level isn't accelerating. NASA says it is. Absolute sea level, as measured from the middle of the ocean, has risen four inches since 1993, according to satellite altimeter data. Average sea level rise throughout the 20th century was 1.5mm per year. In the 1990s, 2.5 mm. Over the last five years, 5mm per year. That's acceleration. The sea has risen 8 inches since 1880, and half of that came after 1993. Koonin is simply wrong. Koonin says Greenland ice isn't melting any faster than 80 years ago. In the 1930s, the Greenland ice sheet lost about 206 gigatons of ice per year. From 2002 to 2021, the ice sheet lost an average of 280 gigatons per year, according to NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. Koonin is wrong. Koonin says climate change has had no effect on hurricanes. According to NOAA, hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the past 40 years. A Taiwanese study on typhoons shows the same increase. While category 1 and 2 hurricanes are diminishing, cat 3, 4 and 5 storms are increasing. With every one degree rise in temperature, the air can hold 7% more moisture. That results in more extreme precipitation events. The warmer ocean water, meanwhile, generates stronger winds speeds. Koonin is wrong. Koonin says “the economic impact of human-induced climate change is negligible, at most a bump in the road.” Houston, Louisiana and New York are already spending a combined $100 billion on flood mitigation projects. Other towns and cities up and down the coastlines are spending billions more. Going forward, the data finds that high tide flooding alone will cause trillions in damages ANNUALLY. Now add in a doubling of burn acreage in the western U.S. and throughout Canada over the last several years, as wildfire seasons have expanded; add in increasing crop loss insurance payouts from heatwaves, droughts and extreme precipitation events and a 60% jump in the spread of tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases, and we end up with a sobering invoice.

[@JohnJ469]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Which facts need checking?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

I just posted fact checks on four of his most critical taking points. See my previous posting. Keep in mind that Koonin isn't a climate scientist. Not working in the field, he often misinterprets data. He's also a former employee of British Petroleum.

[@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344]

Can we just stop talking about polar bears? They’re doing fine for the most part and some of them are now roaming trash dumps in Siberia.

[@Ln-cq8zu]

Not any consolation, but I've never talked polar bears 😂

[@stefanpatrickco]

wont that lead to increse competition with brown bears?

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

Very well written book by an actual climate scientist.

[@markgrissom]

I don't understand why increasing CO2 (man made or natural) is not a positive good given that CO2 is vital to plant life (the most basic of all the facts, but only marginally talked about in this video)? Shouldn't we be talking about achieving an optimal range that supports plant growth, ensuring a steady warming of the planet to support plant and animal life, and to ameliorate the eventual impact of devastating cyclic ice ages?

[@wheel-man5319]

Again, you're not supposed to notice that. After all Patrick Moore is a shill for oil and tobacco....

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

CO2 is great for plants. The warming that accompanies it? Not so much. Heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and wildfires all decimate crops. Just ask any farmer about what extended days of 100-degree temperature do to his fruits and vegetables. At 104 degrees all photosynthesis STOPS. Many seeds won't even germinate. The high CO2 itself diminishes the zinc, iron and protein content of staple crops like wheat and rice. Some plants actually lose part of their natural defenses against insects, which devour them. These are factors people like Koonin (a former employee of British Petroleum) and the fossil fuel industry neglect to mention to the public. "CLIMATE CHANGE CUT GLOBAL FARMING PRODUCTIVITY 21% SINCE 1960S," Science Daily, April 1, 2021. Did Koonin mention this Cornell University study? Give it a read and be enlightened. The next full reglaciation isn't due for over 50,000 years. It's absolutely pointless to use that as an argument to put off reducing our emissions to stem global warming.

[@davidrussell8927]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 There is nothing that shows or explains how it could be possible for the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to be measurably influencing surface temperatures other than the silly superstition called "The Greenhouse Effect".

[@elizabethjones5041]

Thank you, thank you ❤ the truth will set you free.❤

[@joepublic4909]

In Roman times grapes were grown in Yorkshire UK, it is not possible to grow grapes outdoors in UK today, climate emergency is total nonsense.

[@mrunning10]

Wow! What VASTY scientific insight and KNOWLEDGE you have!

[@darrenwithers3628]

What a lot of garbage. There are over 500 vineyards in the UK lmao...

[@KAZVorpal]

The energy poverty can easily be solved, without harm to the environment. What we really need is to legalize nuclear power, and allow competition in its development.

[@mrunning10]

You work for a natural gas or pipeline lobby perhaps?? Nuclear Power IS legal. Wake UP

[@darrenwithers3628]

Nuclear power is legal lol

[@KAZVorpal]

@@darrenwithers3628No, it is effectively illegal to build new nuclear power plants, and has been for decades. And in the places where one could IN THEORY build a nuclear plant, it would have to be one fifty years out of date. The new, completely safe nuclear technologies are absolutely banned, because they're not the old, grandfathered-in tech.

[@keithalderson100]

When a nuclear energy fails it is important that its design allows it to fail into a safe state. This means that any liquid moderator must be part of the process of INCREASING nuclear heat; if it drains - a process that requires no technology or power to achieve - the nuclear reaction, therefore heat production stops. We don't want any unregulated competition that ignores this safety principle, thank you.

[@mrunning10]

Sigh,....helium bed. The molten salts moderators also have fail safe "not working" states. The point is we're not doing a fucking thing to start this and it is the only solution with the necessary KWH/$ that works. @@keithalderson100

[@RS-yb2ss]

It's one big con. More carbon dioxide more greening. The Farmers in the UK say they have never seen the Hedgerow Stronger and Greener.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

We all know that CO2 is good for the planet, but only up to a point. We passed that point. That's because the warming that accompanies rising CO2 increases heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and wildfires, none of which are good for plants. That same warming also melts the icecaps, raising sea levels and flood risks. It intensifies hurricanes, expands wildfire seasons, and increases marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, and the spread of tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. According to UN statistics, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. According to Cornell University, farm productivity is actually 21% lower than it otherwise would be without global warming. Yes, LOWER. Here's why: Heatwaves slow photosynthesis; at 104 degrees photosynthesis stops entirely. Many seeds won't even germinate at that temperature. Think about places in the world like Phoenix, who just suffered through 30 days of above 110-degree temperatures. If you're a third world subsistence farmer (incredibly, over a billion of us still are), your entire livelihood fails. Crop failures from heat and drought, in fact, are what drive millions out of their home countries to adjacent countries. Luckily those of us in modernized nations have made up for warming's damages with advanced farming techniques and better hybrids. How much longer can we stay ahead of the damage, though?

[@RS-yb2ss]

According to UN Statistics, There's the problem.@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

[@normsky5504]

The temperature at the poles may fluctuate, but the temperature at the equator hardly ever changes.

[@roddneyfett444]

Climate change, mainly caused by human activities or partly caused by human activities along with other more significant factors. That is the question that needs answered. Climate change drives severity of weather or Climate change drives more occurrences of severe weather is a question that also needs answered. Bottom line, Climate change is a slow process that does not deserve knee jerk reaction to our energy policies but does deserve long term planning and measured actions.

[@muxion]

Absolutey, I wish NYC State would upgrade the whole state's electrical grid BEFORE mandating electric houses and cars, I could have some confidence in them if they would be reasonable about it. Look what happened to leading-edge Cali when they just put all those requirements on their creaky electrical grid. But NYC State will just force it on the utility companies who will jack the prices up to pay for it, and the poli's will take the credit, then "solve" the problem for the screaming masses by taking over the utilities. Hello Marx!

[@erniewhite1382]

Thanks Steve What a great read Keep it coming ❤❤❤

[@grahamchapman6184]

Sounds like common sense to me.thankyou for that.

[@mrunning10]

HORSESHIT. Total disclosure but not from Koonin: PAID by BP to write his "book." A LIAR keeping the "debate" and confusion going. @MrJohnmr

[@witherbossbros1157]

Never ceases to amaze me the number of non-subject matter experts, like Koonin, that conservatives will line up to illogically, and inappropriately, attempt to disprove something.

[@mrunning10]

He was PAID to do so, knowing there were morons, conspiracists, denialist, British Petroleum, maga book buyers, and Congressmen waiting to lap it up like shit in front of a starving dog.

[@muxion]

Yeah you'd better tell the university where he teaches at the master's level that he's a phony. By the way, what's your "H" score, you know, how academics measure their impact of their publications on their subject matter area?

[@witherbossbros1157]

@@muxion Oh? He has a PhD in climatology? Nope.

[@adolfhitlerowicztrocki495]

Just go to any coast and ask fishermen if they've seen the sea level rise. They'd look at you as you had some kind of mental disorder.

[@foxtrotjulietbravo5536]

Yeah, and I'm a little pissed off about it. We're three miles in from the Gulf coast and I was hoping we'd have a waterfront house by now!

[@adolfhitlerowicztrocki495]

@@foxtrotjulietbravo5536 Your land would go up in price.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Absolute sea level has risen four inches since 1992, according to NASA. Absolute sea level is measured from the middle of the ocean by satellite altimeters, and is unaffected by issues of subsidence or land uplift on shorelines. The rate of rise has also doubled since then. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. You might want to let Houston, Louisiana and New York know that sea level rise is nothing more than codswallop since they have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects already in the works. ;)

[@Orson2u]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 NO. Satellite altimetry is not sound because the tools remain uncalibrated. The Jet Propulsion Labs in Pasadena used to have a web site addressing the problem. The solution proposed by Project GRASP is to launch three satellites into geostationary orbits to achieve this important task of instrument calibration. However, with changing White House Administrations, the web pages got erased, and the “problem” was disappeared because forthright admission was too impolitic. Thus, here we have you bleating off, unaware of the real problems.

[@nicfarrow]

This stupid comment proves nothing. Just grow up.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Just ask one thing: SHOW ME THE THEORY! Science requires a THEORY be established, BEFORE a hypothesis can be given ANY weight. So WHERE IS IT?

[@coachduke9323]

That’s backwards ! Hypothesis is the first step.

[@Ray-tk7ei]

DON'TWORRY , PETER PAN WILL SAVE YOU.

[@almilligan7317]

Also, we have instant communication around the world.

[@larryswinford3472]

Averages, averages, the matter is not the average but the statistical band we call 'normal', standard deviation makes some things thought alarming to instead brush the fringes of the norm.

[@ROLFWIDMER1]

Steven Koonin and his Big Oil (formerly BP) connection , I smell Bias

[@censorthis-uu6cc]

Funny how big oil is making bigger profits than they ever have _despite 'green' policies_ You think that the highest decision makers in big-oil are solely invested in hydro-carbons, or do they diversify to take full advantge of shifts in policy? Maybe they even stand to make huge personal profits by leveraging changes in policies they themselves dictate as they sit on multiple boards in multiple corporations?

[@anthonymorris5084]

When you put "big" in front of oil, does that help you make them sound even more nefarious?

[@michaelplank8966]

In 1250ad it was lot hotter they grew grapes in Birmingham for 100years with no cars

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The Medieval Warm Period was neither global in extent nor globally synchronous. Nor was it hotter than today. Causes of the warming then were completely natural, unlike today.

[@darrenwithers3628]

Must be embarrassing being so ignorant. There are over 500 vineyards in the UK

[@allthatjazz-7]

There's more trees?? What about the Amazon rainforests being cut down ??

[@mrunning10]

He's just tossing rand shit out there moving on to the next denial claim before anyone can catch the lie. Of course there's not "more trees." The climate change deniers sow the doubt by saying "none of the land data is consistent nor matches each other" That is just blah blah blah, ALL are close statistically and more importantly ALL show the planet, humanity, is loosing arable land year by year. THAT is the BIG issue with manmade climate change, not now, but soon enough (~1,000 years) the food needed to feed 8+ billion people will not be available. It is the REAL "Soylent Green" reality.

[@thewiseperson8748]

Excellent balanced perspective. Bravo.

[@davidaemayhew]

Melting of ice caps is not controversial at least, isn’t it?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Absolute sea level has risen four inches since 1992, and the rate of rise has doubled, according to NASA.. High tide flooding is up alarmingly all along the south and Gulf coasts, according to NOAA. Even New England, which is uprising land from glacfial rebound, is up 140%.

[@peterjohnstaples]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 And three millimeters a year, sea rise in Sydney Harbour.

[@martinsaunders2942]

They do that…They melt each summer and grow each winter. Currently the Antarctic has more ice cover, a thicker ice sheet and is colder than it was 10 years ago.

[@keithranker3908]

I don’t think that the ice caps are in danger of melting anytime soon. Per Dr. Koonin, the rate of melting since 2010 has decreased. He says the issue is far more complex than what is presented in media such as the Washington Post. BTW, Dr. Moore is Dr Patrick Moore.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@keithranker3908 Pretty common knowledge that the icecaps won't melt completely for centuries. That isn't the point. The point is that melting NOW is already increasing high tide flooding (up 400% and 1100% respectively along the American south and Gulf coasts, according to NOAA) and elevating storm surges around the world. Koonin isn't a climate scientist, by the way, he's a theoretical physicist and former British Petroleum employee dabblling in a field he does not know nearly as well as he pretends. We just experienced three years in a row of a cooling La Nina, which temporarily affects ice melt in Antarctica. The current El Nino will quickly make up for lost time and accelerate ice loss. The long-term trend irons out the "noise" in the data. That long term trend is continued loss, not gain.

[@gregorybolton4]

All this discussion only matters if you believe man will survive on earth forever ,this planet was created for a reason and it wasn't to see if we could destroy everything on it, man and man alone is what we need to worrie about.

[@mrunning10]

Yes we will survive, the ultimate end point of this YOU don't even consider, but Man's Civilization might NOT survive. Wake the fuck UP.

[@michaeldowns5270]

Thanks for lifting the propagandists veil. I noted that when they claim fuel savings for E substitutions, the math they use to equate gallons of diesel to tons of carbon is skewed by almost three times. An electric bus on a Bellingham to Seattle R/T by 1 year saves 72,000 lbs of diesel and better yet they say that equals 109 tons of carbon. Math?

[@daviddavids2884]

hmmm fyi it has long been known (since before the movie) that the strength of the earth's geomagnetic field, the magnetosphere, has been/is reducing. (causes Not known.) this is BAD.! incredibly, until recently, this fact has been almost universally ignored; including, by the ipcc. yes, pollution is bad. but, the climate would be changing, at this point in time, even if humans never existed.! conclusion: any belief that it is possible to slow/stop/reverse the processes that drive global climate change is fallacious. and, all the flap about pollution should be about something ELSE.!

[@bobmnz6914]

Isn't Greenland the one they cannot farm now. But could in the 900 to about 1600's? Was Greenland ever farmed? For about 400 years centered around 1200 AD, Viking farmers lived in two colonies in Greenland, growing a few crops and raising herds of cattle and sheep.10/03/2017

[@grindupBaker]

You have the usual silly babble. Only the southern coastal edges of Greenland, maybe like 3% of its area, have ever been farmed in the last few million years (so since for ever). The rest has always been ice sheet or cold rock for at least the last 120,000 years. It was ~1.0 degrees warmer than now at ~1,000 years ago and THE HUMANS WERE MUCH MORE RUGGED AND BASIC WITH THEIR LIFESTYLES THAN NOW and farmed it for "couple hundred years" but it got too cold for farming AND NOW IT'S WARMING LIKE A BAT OUT OF HELL. By the end of this century it'll be a few degrees warmer than it was ~1,000 years ago. It's highly moderated by a big Atlantic Ocean current but the global warming will overwhelm that and make it the same as here, Southern Ontario.

[@theseustoo]

@@grindupBaker Surely a 'bat out of hell' would be cooling rapidly...? Just sayin'... 🤔😉

[@samfox8892]

Are sea levels rising not around the Statue or Liberty. Look up pictures from 30-40 years ago, not the water level. THen look up picture from this year. You will find the ocean has not risen at Lady Liberty. SamFox

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

When you look at the statue from different time periods you have to make sure the photos were taken when the sun and moon were in exactly the same spots, the offshore winds were exactly the same, the atmospheric pressure was exactly the same and the water temperature was exactly the same. You even have to check the status of the moon's 18-year nodal phase. All of these affect tide height. Most important of all? The photos had to have been taken at the exact same point of high tide, not 30 minutes apart, not an hour apart. Have you checked all these factors between your photos? According to NASA altimeter data, absolute sea level, as measured from the middle of the ocean, unrelated to the shore's land movements, has risen four inches since 1992. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. Check out HIGH TIDE FLOODING IN QUEENS. Then ask yourself why New York is already spending billions on tidal flood mitigation projects.

[@adrianwhyatt1425]

Excellent!

[@sylvester2294]

Super discussion....we need more...

[@michaelplank8966]

See the winter is getting colder there's more polar bears there's more trees growing stronger

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Average winter temperature across the U.S. has increased 3.2 degrees F since 1970.

[@bobshaw2232]

Based

[@MikeLivesey-c5x]

Quite simply. there is too much air and sea pollution but, if we persuaded the USA, India and China to cut down the number of coal fired power stations and stopped the destruction of rain forests - Job Done. USA, China and India are developing more New and Renewable Energy projects probably more than the rest of the World put together - I and partners are involved in a series of projects in India, none of which could be delivered in the UK because our politicians, during my lifetime (73 years) have not invested in our National Grid - because they are self serving, stupid and only interested in getting re-elected (not all, but those who are bright don't get into government - same all over the world). "Climate Change" has been hijacked by the globalists who want to abolish democracy and replace it with a CCP model - Schwab, Soros, Gates, Charles Windsor (NOT my "king"), Blair (war criminal) , Merkel (former STASI informer). We are endangered by the UN, WHO, WEF, CCP AND our own governments, signing up to Globalisation to further their own financial interests - these are the worst people in the World. I am a New and Renewable Energy Developer - EVs? No thank you - their manufacture has a carbon footprint 70% greater than Unleaded and Diesel vehicles, needing Cobalt and Lithium, mined by child slave labour in Africa serving CCP owned Companies - but who in our MSM, serving the aforementioned bad actors, gives a s**t about children? Not any of them. When our governments are using lies and censorship we need to worry. Love to you all and God Bless America. Mike Livesey, Lancashire, UK

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The use of cobalt and lithium in batteries has nothing to do with the MSM. They simply report the news, they don't create it. I also see hundreds of stories about the downside of cobalt mining from the MSM across the internet. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated by the internet's cesspool of conspiracy theory nonsense. You're also mistaken about EVs. The manufacturing process for EVs does indeed emit more CO2 than that for gasoline cars, but over their life cycles, they emit far less, according to a two-year study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The U.S. Department of Energy agrees. Look it up.

[@caesargaliano2732]

Does anyone have the link to the official ICC report that Steven Koonin is referring to? I want to read some of it myself. Thank you in advance

[@rjones6219]

Without doubt Steve, understands a great deal about climate change and global warming. But I can't help but think, the way he presents his knowledge and understanding, gave the Obama administration the ammunition to create the climate crisis narrative, and the wherewithal to counter any scientific challenges.

[@muxion]

If there is sense in this statement, it isn't obvious, seems to be self contradictory

[@TheFlwildman]

great

[@janicereadymartcher7696]

I have a 1950s encyclopaedia that predicts tugboats pulling icebergs down to Saudi Arabia to provide water. Phil.

[@brianrajala7671]

There is one item that is seldom discussed, but I wonder about. I hesitate to mention it because it could be food for a new bunch of alarms and alarmists. Cities around the world have grown in both footprint and population, and grown by a large factor in my lifetime alone. Do these skyscrapers and asphalt covered parking lots act like a magnet to steer weather patterns causing a change in course or intensity?

[@wheel-man5319]

You know? They might... But that doesn't mean we should stop building cities!

[@brianrajala7671]

I agree Wheel_man

[@SusanBloodgood-o5s]

What’s Not controversial is that Trashing the Planet , Wiping out Species after Species, isn’t good

[@frankknight7968]

True, but that CAN be improved. Climate change is 99% natural.

[@Orson2u]

OK. But then examine the fact of ACTUAL, verified extinctions. What is the historical fact-based pattern? What is the number and trend of extinctions? Excluding all islands (including Australia), where the impact of introduced predators climaxed around 1900 and then rapidly declines, and excluding all but true species (eg, eliminating biogeographic subspecies), then over the past 500 years, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 9 TRUE EXTINCTIONS. Only 9. - Oxford PhD zoologist Matt Ridley, now better known as the popular science writer. (Of course, Dr Ridley is citing other sources from the Conservation Society where he’s been an active leader. But you can verify his argument made on KZbin in an 18 minute ReasonMag talk [towards the end] he gave in 2014? on the subject ofGlobal Greening.) Conclusion? Your alarm and angst is not supported by the relevant facts..

[@Gilli-brand]

Planet Earth is a 12 thousand kilometre diameter sphere of molten rock at temperatures in excess of 5,0000C , with a 36 kilometre thick cooler, low thermal conductive mantle. The 14k gas (80% Nitrogen 0.04%) atmosphere moderates the whole which is additionally heated by the Sun.

[@roblloyd1879]

Climate has always changed, what's the problem.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

8 billion people owning trillions of dollars in infrastructure is the problem. None of it existed to suffer damage during past climate changes.

[@roblloyd1879]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Cuckoo!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@roblloyd1879 What a scholarly response, Rob. According to NASA, sea level has risen four inches since 1992, and the rate of rise has DOUBLED. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. The increases up and down our coastlines is why Houston, Louisiana and New York already have a combined $100 billion in flood mitigation projects in the works. Why do you think they'd spend all that money, Rob? Because they're "cuckoo?" Or maybe they know some things you don't? Why do you think insurance companies are jumping ship and supercharging their premiums? Heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Droughts are also increasing worldwide and wiping out crops. According to Cornell University, the warming that's accompanying rising CO2 has kept crop yields 21% LOWER than they would otherwise be. The severity of heatwave and drought crop losses across Europe has TRIPLED in the last five decades. (Environmental Research Letters, Jun 10, 2021) Climate change has also increased crop loss insurance payouts in the U.S. by over $27 billion. Hurricanes have intensified 8% per decade for the last forty years, according to NOAA. A Taiwanese study of typhoons shows the same increase. Extreme precipitation events are also increasing worldwide, according to the EPA. The cost directly attributable to climate change for Hurricane Harvey's epic rainfall over Houston has been pegged at $67 billion. Wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month in the past forty years, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The amount of Canadian acreage burned each year has DOUBLED since 1970. The western U.S. has also seen massive increases in burn acreage. According to the UN, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly DOUBLED over the previous 20 years.

[@yelyab1]

A little out of balance but the scientist kept it real. The host is a little too obvious. “We don’t understand so forget it”. That isn’t how a curious mind works.

[@mrunning10]

how does YOURS work? why not state what you believe?

[@yelyab1]

@@mrunning10 “What do I think?” I’m 75 and found out 7 years ago that I have the thing that hyper active kids have. On climate, I’m not ready to cast my vote. We have 3 catastrophes coming, 1. Pole shift, epic proportion floods, Continental movement, 2. An Ice Age is in the schedule. It’s follows a solar output trend. It predicted to be mild. Survivable at and below the 35th parallel and within 50 miles of the ocean, which will not freeze over in the temperate and tropical areas. 3. Global warming, sometime in my grand children’s life they all will be breathing air through tanks and live in positive pressure boxes. Which one happens first? I often wondered what happens if you have a pole shift during an ice age. The recent news about doctored technical papers make the conflicting scientific information suspect. This doesn’t help the people on the fence wrt global warming. The PHD in the video referred to the point several times that there is still data lacking to think that CO2 is the only factor or even one of the yet to be identified processes or materials causing the warming. That’s where I am, wandering around aimlessly looking for comprehendible materials on both sides espousing that they have quantified sources and ………

[@coondogalabama3157]

Someone who explains things the other side lectures and says obey or we will destroy you.

[@hydrogia]

We don't know " The Temperature Of The Earth" in 1900 or today, or previously or tomorrow. There is actually no such thing in a coherent discernible scientific form or as a number.

[@mrunning10]

Wow, you you you like from the Heavens? "no such thing in a coherent discernible scientific form...." ah Ha! YOU A BOT!!! Gotcha Bot!!! Ficken You Bot.

[@sylvester2294]

A great big grooming of the world populace!!