The time climate scientists hid data

[@FeeshUnofficial]

Climategate, pizzagate, gamergate. Conspiracy theorists need to stop making -gates and start browsing researchgate

[@somerandomguy___]

Well, at least it makes it east to spot when something is a conspiracy theroy 😆

[@FeeshUnofficial]

@somerandomguy___ true

[@st3pwise]

Its called "gate", like Watergate, because its a Gate from one worldview (the naive) to another (the realistic; that money & corruption rules, not truth & honor etc).

[@FeeshUnofficial]

@@st3pwise not entirely true but I know what you mean. Still doesn't make any of the ones I listed any less insane

[@st3pwise]

​@@FeeshUnofficialwhats not true? Tell me the truth.

[@SpoopySquid]

Scientists: We have overwhelming evidence that human activity is the driving force behind the ongoing climate catastrophe Fossil fuel companies: They're right, we've known about it for decades but supressed that evidence and ran enormous disinfo campaigns Deniers: WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE

[@dougjames4533]

What caused the Medieval warming period and the little ice age? As far as I know climate hysteria has been pushed since the 1970s when "scientists" thought we were entering an ice age. Global annual sea rise has remained at 0.3 mm per year over the last few centuries.

[@edwardsierpowski3839]

@@SpoopySquid You are correct, I was going to ask how many cars and factories the Romans had to cause the 3-5 *C rise in temperature in Albion so they were able to turn England into a major wine producer for their empire? Or how much carbon did the dinosaurs emit to cause a new ice age? Sarcastic I know but these climate alarmists ignore history…. As do all self serving dictators and bullies.

[@gerrymcguire2863]

@@dougjames4533 A lot longer than that! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZSkqmephMiGa68si=cIoLblDxIi2pSyPX

[@chriscastagnetta]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@dougjames4533 Firstly the medevial “warm” period and little “ice age” were regional climatic events that barely affected the average. According to this study: "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach" ~ Kaufman et al. 2020 At most, global temperatures were 0.6°C warmer than pre-industrial averages during the medieval warm period and during the “mini ice age” or “little ice age”, 0.3°C cooler. And that’s looking at the most extreme statistical range. Global temperatures the last 10,000 years have been stable only dramatically increasing in the past 150 years. Also, Simon Clark has a video on the “ice age scare of the 1970s” And no, sea levels rise is accelerating , from 1mm a year 40 years ago to almost 4mm a year now and should accelerate to 10 mm a year by 2100 accumulative causing a sea level rise of 3-4 feet and 15-20 feet by 2200 flooding major costal cities such as NYC, Tokyo, and London

[@trevinbeattie4888]

This illustrates why context matters. Also why having background knowledge of the subject matter is important. Domain-specific communication can easily be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) by people unfamiliar with the technical details.

[@stevesmith-sb2df]

Great video. Exxon also calculated the rise in temperatures similar to climate scientists. The right never brings up the Exxon calculation.

[@DiNY-u9k]

Exxon pays bad scientists to lie for them. This was proven when their marketing person was told that he was speaking to a Saudi Arabian billionaire who he was trying to impress. In reality, Exxon and the other major oil companies have known about climate change caused by fossil fuel use since 1959. Edward Teller, a physicist who worked with J Robert Oppenheimer held a meeting with all of the head of the major oil companies. A memo from 1972 was discovered in which Exxon stated that they knew that climate change would occur because of fossil fuel use. I am just glad that I have the intelligence to check the science in the peer reviewed science journals instead of believing any lie that anyone tells me. You should try it some time. Your eyes will be opened.

[@Wol747]

@@stevesmith-sb2df yes - and I have a copy of the report from the EXXON science unit tasked with making an appraisal of the science by the board. Many of the denier scientists were the same individuals who denied the smoking/cancer link in the 50s/60s.

[@edopronk1303]

My compliments Simon Clark. I'm often becoming disgusted when I read or hear how people are wilfully blocking progress and how people are so ignorant, and you have to deal with this a lot more. Pro's for you.

[@davidjennings2179]

It's always interesting to see how rigorous some people are with trying to discredit claims they don't like Vs the speed in which they believe statements they do like. True of everyone (though more evident in right wing leaders like Trump and his followers).

[@denisdaly1708]

Spot on.

[@12pentaborane]

It's interesting but should be expected. Especially when the the actions that should be taken based on the data are not appealing.

[@sparkyfister]

Is sex a spectrum?

[@davidjennings2179]

@@sparkyfister Sex as a biological categorisation is, scientifically, not a binary. Whether you choose genes, genitals, brain chemistry or hormone production. If you want to read further on the subject the national library of medicine has a few papers on this.

[@gerrymcguire2863]

@davidjennings2179 Wow-yet you believe a beneficial trace gas that has been 10 times greater concentration in previous epochs is going to destroy humanity...

[@pellestorck3776]

Funny thing is none of the models are as bad as reality. Greenland ice is melting faster and last time we had this amount of CO² sea level was 5 meters higher.

[@Frosty294492]

That "time" sewed in the populous enough doubt to ignore solid science and now we have to live with the consequences. It is also important to acknowledge that climate scientists paid by the Oil and Gas companies to find data that could be used to convince us that the warming was not caused by fossil fuels in what I consider a criminal act.

[@chrishaven1489]

I mean, the misinformation surrounding the topic of climate change is not exactly unprecedented. The same type of people who try to decry climate science is the exactly the same type of people who decried the harmful effects of tobacco, lead fuel and pesticides in the past. This level of misinformation is what happenes when there are rich people who stand to lose a lot of money if the science is taken as seriously as it should be. It's happened multiple times before and it disappoints me to no end that we still haven't learned those bloody lessons.

[@DiNY-u9k]

Yes, if they told the truth, they wouldn't make as much money. So, they lie and coverup. That has been proven.

[@tatyboy1337]

a lie will spread halfway around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on...

[@gizmo4816]

@13:24, you show the text "No 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords." I note with interest that there was NO mention of our REPTILIAN overlords.

[@zackmichalski3674]

I don’t work as a scientist but more than half of my emails can easily be taken out of context and create global controversy… if anyone actually cared. I expect that is the case for most people who actually have jobs that matter. If someone wants to make a point if these its ridiculously easy… again who cares.

[@The8BitPianist]

13:00 such an amazingly good point: The alleged "proof" for a climate conspiracy proves that there was no conspiratorial behaviour whatsoever

[@vreeze33]

As someone with little knowledge of tree rings, I think an explanation about why older tree rings are considered accurate would have been nice.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

in the graph shown for the past 150 years, they had actual measurements that corresponded with the the ring data until the global warning. So the only possible anti global warming conclusions you can reach from that are: * Perhaps the recent measurements are giving wrong data now since the tree rings suddenly don't agree any more. * Perhaps there were heat spikes over 150 years ago and these would not be reflected by the tree rings. If you argue any other point then it would be wrong.

[@wolcek]

"Reported first in The Telegraph" - and I could have stopped watching. Their next big win was Brexit.

[@PHa-l6v]

Very good video! Thank you for explaining what "hide the decline" was referring to.

[@c.augustin]

Not only scientists use the word "trick" for clever problem-solving - engineers do it, too! Maybe that's why I never understood where all the upset over this "nature trick" came from (I'm an electrical engineer).

[@Biggest-dh1vr]

And 'One weird trick' ads...

[@thirdeye4654]

If you are not informed or have a specific mindset, every word can twist its meaning, especially if being framed in a certain way.

[@c.augustin]

@@thirdeye4654 The mindset is the more important factor (otherwise you would try to get informed before jumping to conclusions).

[@darkwingscooter9637]

"Trick" isn't problematic in an engineering context. Scientists. however, shouldn't be in the business of engineering solutions. Lesson 1 of day 1 of science 101 is to not start from a theory and work back to the data, which is what AGW climatologists are admitting to. What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@darkwingscooter9637 "What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple." You're not educated in science or methodologies. You have no credible evidence for this stupid claim.

[@ganymedezorg]

This video touches on a topic that I think deserves more coverage: the fact that many people, especially people without a scientific background, tend to conflate mistrust and "healthy" skepticism. Scientists are people and therefore make mistakes and present their work in a manner meant to persuade. Therefore, you should always question and check their work, under the presumption that any errors are good faith mistakes and not born out of ill intent. Mistrust should be reserved for malicious actors only. I place nearly all of the blame for this mischaracterization of the scientific community on the shoulders of mainstream media.

[@QT5656]

The fact is that the hockeystick pattern has been recovered by over 60 independent studies using different datasets.

[@JustinHiggins]

It's not even that complicated to check (crudely, at least). When the leak came out, I was skeptical about climate change and read through the emails. Based on the emails I read, it seemed like the scientists were having trouble replicating the hockey stick graph after 1999, mostly because of the information technology they were using. So I downloaded the NOAA global surface temperature data from 1850 to 2009 and plotted the data. Turns out my simple graph looked pretty much exactly like the (end of) the hockey stick graph I'd seen everywhere. I didn't have any of the long term paleo data, but the difference between the 1800s and now was clear. So much for fun conspiracies.

[@darkwingscooter9637]

If your intention is to find patterns in datasets you can easily find infinitely many. You can also find infinitely many to find the opposite conclusion. This is why a good test for pseudoscience is if what they are doing is recovering patterns in datasets. If you start with the conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it, you are not doing science.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@darkwingscooter9637 Knock it off, denialist.

[@QT5656]

@@darkwingscooter9637 So how come skeptics have also recovered a hockey stick shape?

[@darkwingscooter9637]

@@QT5656 Because if you torture data long enough you can recover any shape you like. That's why it's so crucial that the evidence you should be looking is that the scientists are not STARTING with the hockey-stick shape before finding it in the data. The climategate leaks falsify that hypothesis. That's why it's devastating. The fact that the scientists are trying to prove a theory by statistical manipulation of data-set makes it pseudoscience. In any other (well regarded) discipline that kind of behaviour would be career ending. This is how you know that AGW climatology is not proper science. A consensus among experts in a pseudoscientific discipline is utterly irrelevant. Only pseudoscientists would appeal to consensus in the first place.

[@nelkosme3734]

I was going to say that it is a sad situation that the conversation about climate change are so politicised- if you are of a certain political persuasion you are bound to get the whole package. Not even thinking for yourself - you "believe" and that's a problem. But I decided to look through the comment section and am amazed that it consists almost entirely of climate change denials. Why would they waste their time if they are so certain this is a non-conversation?

[@MissyBeeeee]

The quality of your videos is getting even better with the new studio.

[@calci2679]

The climate change denialism in the world is awful

[@Stupidityindex]

Yes, but I don't get Lord Monkton videos anymore.

[@QT5656]

It is curious that this valid comment is so near the bottom. It's almost as if the climate change deniers are voting it down and their claims that they hate censorship is another lie.

[@QT5656]

@@Stupidityindex Lord Monkton is fool that doesn't even acknowledge the slow long term increase in Solar irradiance.

[@melmarrison8769]

You are conflating Climate change (which has been happening since the planet formed) and Human induced climate change which has been inflated to ridiculous proportions.

[@ciaranhappyentriepaw]

my lord this comment section is cursed.

[@cazman182]

It is people who have already come to a conclusion looking to confirm their already existing conclusion, rather than coming with a genuine desire to learn/hopefully be proven wrong, which is what intelligent people tend to do. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, it's a sign that you're able to self-correct and become smarter.

[@ciaranhappyentriepaw]

@@cazman182 I was talking about all the climate-denier types who clearly hadnt actually watched the video. Simon Clark is a strange place for such people to go to have their existing conclusions validated. I had the comments on "newest first", always a mistake.

[@cazman182]

@@ciaranhappyentriepaw it is a strange place indeed, but they do flock here to look for the latest gotcha or all the ways Simon/the scientific community/many global organisations are wrong on the subject and they're right.

[@NOLNV1]

​@@cazman182 I guess it feels more "real" to post it here or something? Strange stuff. Serveral write in a real fire and brimstone style which at least is a little fun, but overall its very depressing to read.

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

There are two climate breakdown belief camps - those that can see the evidence of climate change (scientists, economists, the insurance industry, doctors, farmers, land managers (especially along coastal areas subject to coastal erosion), meteorologists, those living in hazard prone areas etc) - those that "deny" climate change (those that depend on dirty industries to earn a living, those making s****loads of money from dirty industries, those that profit from disaster recovery, politicians whose funding comes from dirty businesses or people making s****loads of money from dirty businesses etc) It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair

[@urbanspaceman7183]

@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 Rubbish, there is plenty of crossover between the two camps you describe. Pigeonholing is so lazy, and inaccurate.

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

@urbanspaceman7183 Um, I don't think so. The world has been talking about climate change officially for at least 50 years now - it's even taught in schools... to primary school kids. The last couple of years has seen a major escalation of extreme weather events & other climate disasters. So much so that our mental health is being affected (it even has a name - climate anxiety). Climate change is no longer "subtle" - too many things are going wrong now and it's being covered 24/7 by the global news media. If you're thinking about some isolated tribes in the middle of a jungle somewhere, chances are they've noticed it too. Nope, everyone "knows" about climate change because everybody everywhere has seen it (no place is safe from the impacts) or worse, lived through it. If anyone says climate change isn't a thing, they're lying (even to themselves) for one reason or another.

[@DiNY-u9k]

Absolutely. Insurance companies moving out of certain states should be a good indicator to anyone with half a brain.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@DiNY-u9k Insurance agencies aren't playing a long-term game. They are still all about short-term profitability. They will NEVER protect the public from something.

[@alistairmackintosh9412]

​@@jaykanta4326If you want to win when gambling, you don't play against a rigged game.

[@alyeanna]

"communist vegetarian overlords" lmaoooo that's mee frfr.

[@Bleilock1]

If only that was true man World would be a better olace

[@pooyanshafai7566]

So tree growth is not a good indication of temperature change from the 1990s to now, that's interesting. I am an agricultural scientist and a farmer. My experience as an anecdote says the same thing from the 1990s to now tree growth has changed. Their annual life cycle is disrupted and we lose many more of our products to a decrease in temperature in March.

[@supermanifolds]

Always love KZbin putting the warning under Simon's video like he's some crackpot conspiracy theorist

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

it's actually an automated message put on all videos that talk about climate change or global warming. ironically, you're the one engaging in conspiratorial thinking

[@Vulcano7965]

It's a automated banner whenever YT detects climate change as a topic in these videos. There is no human control here, why do people pretend there is?

[@etienne8110]

​@@critiqueofthegothgfthe issue with the automated warning is that it puts the same "label" on scientists' videos and conspirationnists' ones. For one of the richest companies on Earth, this is quite lame and lazy.

[@bartroberts1514]

Missing from your excellent recital of the history, that there were 3 tranches of stolen emails released, and they were released in order by the hacker who filtered the contents to emphasize the most confusing or wrong-sounding contents first in the initial release, then whatever suspect contents remained, later, then most of the rest. The thief worked very hard to create a false picture.

[@CamAustralia001]

Valued your video. Picky but significant and consequential point. This post related to 19:43. Scientists are human, yes. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to weed out human bias and human imperfection of experimentation and interpretation. From my experience working in science labs, the vulnerability to personal intellectual bias (as distinct from personal emotional bias), while existent, is on many issues less, not the same, as the general public. By some very significant margin. This comes from the mind training and natural rational orientated minds and personalities of scientists. They appreciate the 'search for truth'. So their level of objectivity on matters of concern to science is generally distinctly higher as individuals, than most others. They actually 'do their research' for a start and have a culture to consider and argue to good purpose, differences of view and interpretation on data. That said, not infallible. And there is considerable individual difference. I see a greater source of bias upon scientists is from the increasing academic and university environment pressures upon research scientists and academics. Eg level of funding, push to publish x papers to progress careers, etc, etc. And also the social and public media and increasing attacks on science generally, and specific scientists. Pressures they feel themselves and struggle with. They also have partners, kids, mortgages like everyone else! Good work Simon Appreciated highly your unpacking of this issue. Really good. Thanks Cameron.

[@QT5656]

Your comment fits with my experience as a published scientist that has worked at universities in both the UK and Australia.

[@Politarium]

The chapter Simon recommends towards the end ("Tricks," Hockey Sticks, and the Myth of Natural lnscription: How the Visual Rhetoric of Climategate Conflated Climate with Character) can be downloaded together with the entire book for free at the last source link, if you have a university account. Can recommend!

[@chrslb]

Tbh I did not understand why it's ok to say that temperatures predicted by rings in trees are correct *except* in the last 50 years without even knowing why this is the case. This makes me actually doubt global warming more

[@StratosFair]

Lovely video, but unfortunately the people who need to watch it the most won't...

[@kenbee1957]

I still link them whatever chance I get

[@TheHoveHeretic]

Unfortunately, honest endeavour is too often ineffective against a self-serving cabal of interests who think they're doing nicely and in any event, believe their ill-gotten gains will somehow inure them against the effects of their own actions.

[@scottmcqueen3964]

If the data diverges once, what evidence is there that it doesnt diverge again? You seemed to gloss over this obvious aspect. I would assume there is also other methods being used to determine past global temperatures which align with tree ring data beyond the era of recorded temperatures, but the evidence for this isn't given or even mentioned. As such, the tree ring data matching up with recorded temperatures for a short period of time can actually be dismissed as a simple coincidence, and therefore not a reliable indication of past temperatures. If the divergence happened once, it could obviously happen again.

[@jokuhunaify]

Yes since this clearly is part of the core of the video, it needs better explanation. Other than "we know it is not the case".

[@looncraz]

Exactly - it's wrong now, because it's core assumptions are wrong - and well proven to be wrong. It correlated to the past well ONLY because they designed it to do so - the entire field of study used other existing proxies to try and determine a range of temperatures and other growth variables that might correlate with each other... and those fields of study did that exact same thing. Paleoclimate is VERY approximate.. and nowhere near accurate enough to climate that a 0.8C warming or 1.5C warming has even happened.

[@nooodisaster]

This was one of your best videos yet. Great infographs, informative, engaging.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Clicking on the comments to open them (on mobile) consistently caused the video to skip back when it shouldn't. KZbin defect.

[@misterlyle.]

The Watergate Scandal is named after the Watergate complex in Washington D.C.; that political scandal became the inspiration for naming later scandals. Simon's comments seem to downplay its status in the ongoing tradition of including "gate" in the name of subsequent scandals.

[@BrentHollett]

"Climate Deniers hate this one simple trick"....

[@CaperCafe_]

Great video! I was fully engaged from beginning to end. Your presentation, structure and the editing throughout the video were fantastic. Always happy to watch a Simon Clark video!

[@tfk_001]

Have you taken inspiration from BobbyBrocoli in your editing style? Your timeline and image display techniques as well as some graphics seem really reminiscent (not calling you out, inspiration is fine)

[@Sagealeena]

I think it’s a particular application which formats things like that. BobbyBroccoli is a pretty famous example (and he makes great videos). I’ve also seen several other creators using a similar style

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

it's similar but if you watch several of his older videos like 'the decade we lost earth' or 'the century we saved earth', he's been using the style for quite a while. it's awesome

[@squeaker19694]

Some scientists claim that plant stomata numbers on leaves are a better indicator of past and present CO2 levels.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Paleoclimatologists use many proxies. Plant's stomates can depend upon various factors, such as humidity.

[@bartroberts1514]

Google Scholar shows thousands of new climatology papers a month. The subject goes back two centuries. The diversity of conciliant datasets exceeds ten thousand. What some scientists claim to be better pales compared to how much is shown by the sum of all data.

[@Tnowion]

yes. all yes. and climate change is real. but how do they treat the uncertainty if tree rings corelated with temperatures before they could double check with other measurements?

[@birkett83]

Restating the lie upfront is a really bad way to convince people they've been lied to. There's research on this.

[@bartroberts1514]

Cook's method is to state what is true, and why we know it; to label as false the false statement to introduce it, then state it, then show why we know it to be false; finally, to repeat the truth and a second reason we know it to be true.

[@thirdeye4654]

Great video, not only the topic itself, but also how you presented it (graphics and such), and the way you narrated it.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

I've never heard this and I'm not a climate denier, climate is obviously changing rapidly. That said, just admit that tree ring data isn't an accurate historical record of temperature. That is the facts. The data doesn't agree with recent, more accurate data we have from thermometers and such. So how EXACTLY do we know it was accurate 900 years 700 years 500 years ago where we don't have that more accurate data to compare to? Seems impossible to say something wasn't skewing the temperature indicator in tree rings in the past. Calling it a "trick" seems accurate, because genuine science should not be done like this. If there is an inaccuracy that is known you don't hide it or use a trick to obscure it - you show it and make the actual facts known.

[@dieSpinnt]

Dendroclimatological data do not exist in a vacuum. We have other methods, such as ice core samples and pollen analysis to ensure accuracy. And of course the temperature measurements and satellite data mentioned. Even purely statistically, one could identify and eliminate outliers and erroneous data with a high degree of probability. And that is exactly what happened. We observe a dendroclimatological consistency of the data from 1000 years ago to recent times, which is consistent with the other methods. No matter what caused the calibration deviation in the last decades (CO2, air pollution, sulphur dioxide, etc.), we KNOW that this type of deviation did not occur before. It is simply true that up to a year X, one method produces good measurement data. And after that (or long before, there have been professional weather and temperature measurements with detailed records for over 200 years) it is simply irrelevant because we have many orders of magnitude more precise measurement methods and options in modern times. And please don't fall into the most embarrassing mistake: This is not about the fact that on July 8, 1432, it was exactly 25.6° Celsius, but about TRENDS. About statistical models from which you can derive forecasts. It's very simple (I am lying, heheh. The principle is simple, but studying for many years may be very "helpful"). Have a good one and nice weather!;)

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@dieSpinnt Um no, that isn't good enough. Apparently it is unknown why after year X it changed. If it can't be explained in detail what caused it and why it is not understood. If it is not understood it can not be completely ruled out or compensated for. This also causes concern formthe methods that are being used and the lackadaisical approch to what is pitched as absolute fact vs best current understanding/theory. Scientists are supposed to be rigorous and fact based, but this way of doing things is not.

[@parakeetriot]

@@Me__Myself__and__I You're actually kinda right but scientists do understand the unreliable nature of paleoclimate data. If you look at the hockeystick graph you will see a gray shaded area that displays the wide uncertainty in the measurements. One of the most significant things about the graph is that it shows current temperatures are above the uncertainty of this data. The comment above you also makes some fair points, that in paleoclimate measurements, the various measurements mostly line up but that does not hold true now.

[@edwardsierpowski3839]

@@dieSpinntyes but what caused the divergence? Nobody wants to explain or research that one. Is it perhaps the fear of being proved wrong (either way)?

[@RaidPanda404]

I spent the whole video thinking almost every sentence was a segway to an add for Ground News, or Data Visualisations courses on Brilliant. And then came the ad. 😂

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

There was a kind of segue. A Segway would be unlikely.

[@shawnalexandernoticemesenpai]

I often ask myselfz what came first? the video concept or the ad?

[@hunterdouglas9765]

This is tremendous, Simon. Nice work! I feel like 19:26 is the heart of the Kuhn-Popper debate about what science is (in theory versus in practice).

[@MoonlightWalnut]

My supervisor was involved in the leak from the CRU, I've read about it before but I apreciate learning abut it in greater detail through your content!

[@latheofheaven1017]

Using 'trick' always seemed innocuous to me. Is a footballer being dishonest by scoring three goals in a match - a hat-trick? But the use of 'hide' was a poor choice of words. People talking to each other who understand the context of the words they're using will often be less than fastidious about the specific words they use, because they both know the background and can infer the genuine meaning. So I get it. But all the same, the word 'hide' was a horrible choice.

[@Eeraschyyr]

First time hearing of 'climategate' as far as I recollect. An interesting subject, and a clear display of how laymen understanding of the sciences can so easily/readily misconstrue the processes involved in it. I did get mildly distracted by that lovely jumper. I'm also curious as to what might have caused trees to stop being quite so reliable as a historical temperature record. That's a head-scratcher, and warrants study!

[@lyrimetacurl0]

potholer54 did videos about so-called "those emails" around the time, but I never knew what the emails actually were 😅 so maybe it was those.

[@DiNY-u9k]

Wow! That is so amazing. I just saw the terrible flooding in Spain. Before that, I saw that the shoreline in England is washing away. Before that, I saw the results of Hurricane Helene. It went all the way up to the Mountains of North Carolina and destroyed several towns. Right now, forest fires are burning in Western Canada, the Western United States and on the East Coast of the United States. Boy do we have an awful lot of bad weather lately. I know that you don't want me to use the word climate. Maybe when you see that farms are no longer productive and you have no food, then you might understand what is really going on. Personally, I'm waiting for the collapse of the Thwaites Glacier that scientists have termed the Doomsday Glacier. I don't know how old you are but I am willing to bet that you die in the next few years because of the weather, not the climate. Keep up the good work. Bring out that one guy from 1999. Don't speak of the numerous peer reviewed journal papers that all speak of the fact that the poles are warming exponentially, faster than science previously believed they would. It is amazing to me to see that people are still lying about climate catastrophe, I mean the weather.

[@alganhar1]

You know that the shorelines of the UK have been washing away since literally the formation of the Islands right? They have also been DEPOSITING since the formation of the islands.... The way the currents work in and around the UK what is washed away at say Ravenscar in the North East of England is deposited further south.... Climate is NOT changing erosion and deposition patterns in the UK *at the moment*. It may do in the future, with future sea level rise, but it is not the case at this moment.

[@DiNY-u9k]

@@alganhar1 Shorelines are also washing away in many places. Cities are receding by an inch a year all over the world because most were built near the water. At the same time, rivers all over the world are drying up. Some are so low that shipping has been halted. I suggest that you start studying peer reviewed science journals to learn the truth. You have bought the lie and it will kill you very soon. We are officially in the sixth mass extinction event and it is increasing exponentially instead of incrementally. None of us have long. They speak of decades but I am certain that it will happen within the next two years, maybe only one year.

[@youkofoxy]

That is such bad wording. They could have used: To fix the data divergence.

[@JanB1605]

Are you always thinking about how to phrase an email to your peers so that if it gets taken out of context a few years down the line it won't sound wrong?

[@davidjennings2179]

It's pretty common wording, at work sometimes I'll write a correct but quick fix for a problem, these are often called a "fudge". Taken out of context a paper could try to imply that me "fudging" things means I made up data when any real due diligence on the work would reveal that it's correct, just could be written more elegantly. There will always be someone looking to twist your words

[@QT5656]

@@JanB1605 Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded. The latter has happened to me several times. Over ten years ago I was explaining a very sensitive situation to a colleague and six months later they used the e-mail to reply to me about something else and copied in the person the first mail was about. Luckily my wording had been very magnanimous and the other person had to accept that my description of the situation was fair.

[@DirtyPoul]

@@QT5656 "Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded." This was in 1999...

[@QT5656]

@DirtyPoul I'm old. I've been using e-mail since 1997.... 😬

[@KaiHenningsen]

Hah. You got me. I expected the sponsor to be Ground News, not Brilliant.

[@joshc2206]

The Earth is hollow, and the climate goblins inside the Earth are faking climate change #goblinchange

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

Could you please send me a nice gobliness?

[@Nosirrbro]

Good video but It’s stupid to call it an agenda. A message, a narrative, sure. But people pretty much use agenda to mean political agenda, which is something only the right wing not science based argument was doing here. The scientists “agenda” was just to accurately communicate the best scientific consensus. You could maybe argue that interpreting that we should do something about it is an agenda, but again the science directly says that it is a major threat to human life so I guess valuing human life counts as an agenda they might have pushed but I guess I thought that was supposed to be assumed for all people? You don’t have to validate every unfair talking point you hear just because there’s a way to argue it’s “technically not wrong” just to be “fair and balanced” or whatever

[@ehjapsyar]

I kind of agree, but I would be even less dramatic and call it a "theory" or a "hypothesis". Then there might be a narrative behind the hypothesis, but it is generally not the case.

[@FelipeKana1]

​@@ehjapsyarsorry, but then you would be using both "theory" or "hypothesis" very wrongly. Narratives are not theories neither hypothesis. Btw, I entirely agree with OP

[@ehjapsyar]

@@FelipeKana1 most graphs/figures are designed to show that data supports a model or hypothesis (which often fit in a theory). This is the case in the graph which is being discussed in this video. The authors have an hypothesis that there is a dramatic change in climate caused by human activity, and the graph attempts to show data supporting it. This is one of the basic methods in science: formulate hypotheses and test them against data. One could argue that formulating hypotheses implies having an agenda, narrative, or message, but I disagree.

[@robdownunder]

If your 'Base Foundation' is flawed then prepare, for 'all' u have been told will collapse ! Paris Accord was fraud. Carbon Graphs enhanced at certain time of millenia to have dramatic effect on public. Human warming 0.004% Climate change is Solar Driven and 12.000yr cycle right on time. Magnetic Poles B-lining for the usual spot below the bay of bengal since the Carrington event 1859. Earth Flip as usual believed to be up also to 104 degrees followed days later by Our Suns Micro-Nova ! How Long?...well were past the 'Inflextion Pt'. 2 solar cycles ?...NO !!! less !

[@squeaker19694]

Very well explained. Send this to Tom Nelson!

[@jaykanta4326]

He'll just pretend it doesn't exist.

[@waytooaverage]

Really great video. It's great to have a succinct history and analysis all in the same place.

[@Campaigner82]

Good explanation. I would link this video to people who talk about “climate gate” but we all know they wouldn’t watch it…..

[@zakmorgan9320]

Is this a bobby broccoli inspired animation?

[@michaelniederer2831]

Excellent summary. Thank you again.

[@georgewaters6424]

Top quality analysis as per usual.

[@mweskamppp]

That is how science works. Somebody writes a paper, sometimes with revolutionary ideas and puts it out to be debunked or verified. Other try to find contradicting explanations or try to find the same data with own methods. Over time a better picture of the item in question is showing. Sometimes the original paper is roughly confirmed with some corrections sometimes it is proven to be wrong. Manns findings were criticized but finally found to show the right direction. Thousands tried to debunk it and they failed to find contradicting data or sufficient hypothesis that offer a better explanation. Nearly all of the arguments are in the models for decades now. It is about to narrow the error spans for different factors these days.

[@douggoodman3914]

I strongly suspect that you and the scientists who published this hockey stick are correct that tree ring data provide an accurate determination of past temperatures. However, it would be nice to have an explanation of why we can trust the tree ring data from before the blade of stick, whereas the tree ring sizes after are not correlated with global temperatures. My guess is that data from ice cores and peat cores and other methods correlate well with the pre-blade tree ring data. Please provide this rationale. Hiding the "decline" (i.e. the lack of correlation) seems like a bad decision. Why not just use other data to show past temperatures, or show a plot of past temperatures based on multiple techniques?

[@jaykanta4326]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpSbcmmJfq-coNUsi=dxERjFqwyJHnhqnA

[@Olivman7]

Yeah, I don't like the Simon is putting scare quotes around "hiding" the decline in that context. It's still a form of massaging data, presenting an idealized version of the data that matches the conclusion you think it already points to. It's condescending and untrustworthy behavior, that's unfortunately common in academia. It's valid to say that other indicators point at climate change being real, but then we should point at those indicators, even when they're noisy, not just go "it's probably fine" when one indicator gives inconvenient results.

[@ItWasSaucerShaped]

yes; tree ring data prior to industrialization accurately predicts the same results you would see from, say, ice core data. you use the term 'correlated', but the relationship is much stronger than that. you can do a blind test of tree ring data and it will match blind tests of ice core data (and other data) i suspect you are intentionally using the word 'correlated' because in reactionary circles that perfectly legitimate term has taken on a dirty meaning, with reactionaries banging-on about how correlation does not equal causation without really understanding either concept and making an arguably worse error than anyone who just assumes correlation and causation are the same thing: that since correlation does not equal causation, correlation never even implies causation. that the two things never have any overlap or relationship with each other. by this reasoning, if you see two correlated data points, you should actually assume a negative relationship (which is dogmatic essentialism, not science) the only honest answer for why tree ring data stopped being accurate after industrialization, as simon says is the video, 'we don't know'. we only know it was accurate, and then it stopped being accurate. probably, given the timing, we just pumped too much pollution into the environment and the tree growth seasons began reacting to our pollution more than they react to temperature and rainfall we could at least hypothetically test that by, say, sampling trees that aren't being affected by as much pollution against trees that are, but people like yourself block access to that kind of fundamental research funding via your electoral political power, so *shrug*

[@jaykanta4326]

@@Olivman7 Unfortunately for you the Hockey Stick paper outlines exactly why he did it, it identified the known issue with the divergence issue and followed good methodologies. It is fine, it's documented in the paper why he did what he did and how he did it, allowing for replication. It's not "idealized". It's homogenized. Homogenization of data happens with ALL datasets beyond a certain size and complexity. The results weren't "inconvenient". That's your bias. The results were correct right up until the KNOWN divergence issue made the later data corrupted while the early data was valid.

[@bcwbcw3741]

@@Olivman7 The paper discloses and explains exactly how and why they are processing the data. Tree data is useful because you can get it from all over the world, while other data such as date of first freeze or pollen or ice breakup are restricted to a limited number of locations or times. You can compare other methods that are local in space or time against the tree data to verify that it is giving good numbers. As far as the tree data goes, note that it becomes uncertain at exactly the time that coal soot and smog and new rapid tree cutting spread to the whole world.

[@willguggn2]

People mostly made fun of the shape of the hockeystick graph as if no serious graph ever showed sudden exponential developement, ever. The oughts were wild.

[@ThylineTheGay]

60 MB leak, lol that seems so tiny compared to leaks these days

[@thirdeye4654]

I guess those mails didn't have any attachments stored on that server.

[@MrMezmerized]

True, but if it's all text with a few simple graphs in between, then it's A LOT to read.

[@arenomusic]

My boss is one of the people involved, thanks for covering this follow-up

[@jenshappel2209]

09:15 that only shows that tree rings are not suitable to "measure" old temperature. Period. The whole video trys to tell what is upside is downside. Tree rings are not only affected by temperature but also by moisture and CO2 in the air.

[@edopronk1303]

Why would it show that tree rings aren't suitable to "measure" old temperatures? The graph at 8:15 shows a clear correlation.

[@iirosiren5120]

​@@edopronk1303 Yes but the jump happened when we got satellite data

[@lyrimetacurl0]

I think what you're trying to say is if there was a similar random global warming/CO2 spike in the past because apparently CO2 and heat can just come out of nowhere, then tree rings would also not be able to reflect this and thus would be unreliable.

[@QT5656]

Thanks Simon! Please keep up the excellent work!

[@altrag]

The scientific method is not unbiased. That is not and never was it's purpose. It's purpose is to remove bias _over time,_ by replacing older knowledge with newer knowledge as we gain it. That time component is absolutely critical - it is what allows scientists to discover and produce knowledge while still acknowledging that they're you know... human. Most of the problem with modern science is not the scientists or the scientific method, it's the science reporting. The stuff average people (and in particular, voters and the politicians they elect) get to see. You simply can't compress a 37-page paper into a single headline or even a three-paragraph article without losing immense amounts of information and nuance, never mind the propensity for monetary influence - buying a scientist can get you an intentionally-biased research paper to be sure, but as noted above the scientific method corrects for that (eventually). Buying a science _reporter_ on the other hand doesn't really get a correction. The domain of public knowledge doesn't have the same sort of replacement mechanism that functions to correct scientific knowledge, even with the dimension of time included. Once a narrative becomes "popular" it becomes very hard to change, regardless of what the evidence suggests.

[@dieterkonig5588]

Great video, good work! 👍👍👍

[@NewAge374]

How does a guy on KZbin provide a clearer explanation with visual learning systems to these events that shaped our history and will shape our future? This is an example of science communication!

[@alunhuang-wright3030]

I'm fascinated by tge tree ring proxy data. May I ask how many trees were used to generate this data for each region of the earth and how many regoins were samples taken from?

[@NimbleBard48]

Finally! The video you promised years ago... :)

[@sjzara]

No - scientists don’t push agendas. They push ideas. Ideas are not agendas. Agendas imply certain motivations. Scientific ideas are about exploring reality, not trying to insist what reality should be.

[@st3pwise]

Scientists are people, like everyone else, and equally susceptible to bribes, threats and general corruption...like everyone else.

[@sVieira151]

I believe you are getting hung up on semantics for some reason and I'm not sure why. Agenda doesn't imply 'certain' motivations, it implies that there is a motivation of some kind. It seems to have turned into a negative word in common usage, but it is not by definition negative. For example, your agenda as a scientist could be to conduct experiments/tests/observations and report your findings as neutrally and without bias as you can.

[@cazman182]

@@st3pwise This is why there is peer review and scientific consensus. The infrastructure behind science is specifically designed to remove bias and corruption to the greatest extent possible.

[@chrishaven1489]

@@st3pwise Sure. But bribing, threatening an corrupting 97% of all climate scientists into "selling" the same science is a little much. That's like corrupting the whole medical health profession into tricking the public that smoking causes lung cancer. Or physicists into tricking the public that gravity exists

[@ElectricAlien577]

​@st3pwise You could also be susceptible to bribes and corruption.... how do we know you arent being paid by fossil fuel industries?

[@chrisl442]

8:15 This is absurd. If tree rings underestimate today's temperature, it means it has underestimated temperatures from mostly every periods in the past. It's just unreliable. What an inconvenient truth this is!

[@gabagoul67]

love this new graphics Simon! very intuitive and engaging

[@timmo971]

As if a Russian hacker is a neutral source. Ha.

[@bobo-r5k6x]

Russian? He's probably American.

[@jitteryjet7525]

Yeah I don't trust that "interview" for a second.

[@jeff__w]

The motion graphics, e.g., at 9:28, 17:29 and 20:33, are dazzling. (And the content is _very_ engaging as well.)

[@totallycarbon2106]

Yeah really feels like professional documentary type stuff!

[@mindboggling258]

A comment for the algorithm

[@jajssblue]

Oooh, that Bobby Broccoli styling! I don't mind this pivot.

[@ancbi]

Simon Spinach

[@MichaelJohnField]

Hi Simon, a great video as always - I know you've covered this before (e.g. 'Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth' etc) but the message and delivery is so clear, precise and thoughtful, I think this is one of your best videos (nice jumper too!). The study of dendroclimatology reminds me slightly of Helen Czerski talking about Whale earwax taken from the Whale ear canal - and the timescale of the stress events held within the earwax. There's always things to learn (I'm hoping I'll remember the 'dendroclimatology fiasco' more clearly now). Keep up the great work. Best wishes🙂 Michael

[@manuel_ao]

A nice nuanced video on the human bias that's present in all fields, including science, but how this is still the best way that we have to interpret the data and better understand the world around us.

[@thermalXTX]

yas

[@xtieburn]

It remains a constant frustration to me that the news media is so often in direct opposition to the reality of a situation. That we treat these incidents as a catastrophic failure of handling the press, instead of many people asking: Why do we have to constantly manage the press like its a rabid dog? I mean, we all know why, but its depressing that everyone has largely just given up on the news being even remotely trustworthy. [and contrary to many a news article, this has very little to do with social media. The misinformation of social media is overblown, ignores the enormous good that it has done to inform people (See, Gaza.) and is more a symptom of the failing trust in the press, not its cause. (As proven by declining trust going back before social media was even a thing.) Its also a symptom exasperated by the fact that much of the worst examples of misinformation online is being actively signal boosted by the very press that criticises those outlets... Honestly, some slow days it feels like every other story is based on tweets.]

[@volkerengels5298]

Media=Society => liking their own lifestyle today. It is not hard-denial they share. "We" just flatten the risks to the thinnest.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

Jonathan Haidt has books on how social media directly caused a massive rise is teen suicide. Giving it a pass is absurd. It is the media most capable of being used deceptively. Facebook was puted for doing social experiments with its feeds years ago. Slightly changing stuff to gauge responses and learn the minutae of human behavior to sell it. Google and facebook pretty much started the data gathering wave that has removed privacy from our lives. We carry spy devices with us everywhere we go that can keep track of our breathing rate to gauge stress levels. Your opinion looks rooted in denial and tech worship.

[@Bleilock1]

Literally all news outlets and media is bought and in rhe pockets of the rich, what do you expect

[@Bleilock1]

​@@HoboGardenerBenputed isnt a word

[@jaykanta4326]

@@HoboGardenerBen Real scientists publish peer-reviewed research. Haidt is a propagandist and grifter.

[@petewright4640]

In those academic circles the term "Trick" means a mathematical adjustment to account for an error. It is not a trick in the layman's sense of the word.

[@coderentity2079]

I wonder what "Dick" means in academic circles? Maybe that means fitting data to expectations. Maybe scientists should stick to the actual meaning of the words when they use them.

[@emeraldworldlp8828]

Wow. Just... wow. Why is our reality so depressing...

[@twistedsteeltv6130]

Because greed and a profit seeking attitude above all else by the wealthy ruling elites and big businesses.

[@peterz2352]

Interesting post Simon. As I scientist myself in the field electromagnetic field and health, I do see some similarities. I do want to mention that personally I find it extremely difficult not to try to convince people with facts. My talent is not so much on the psychologial side of debating. Cheers

[@etienne8110]

and what would be the alternative ? Convincing people with émotions ? 😅 Like "mother Earth is hurt, can t you feel her pain? Dance and stop using fossils to heal her." 😂

[@peterz2352]

@etienne8110 I really don't know. Scientists are warning for decades by now. The data and evidence is at their side. Humanity obviously is not worthy a future I guess. Perhaps that is the emotional rollercoaster one needs. As stated previously, presenting facts and showing data haven't caused sufficient action. For myself, I'm a scientist with a talent for physics and math, not so much for psychology;-)

[@S7hadow]

@@etienne8110 You might think it's funny, but this is exactly how people are convinced. Marketing does not try to sell you facts, it tries to sell you the positive feeling you get from buying something. Populist politics usually appeals to fear and anger, which allows it to ignore facts. Art and entertainment can have a profound impact on people precisely because of emotions. Humans are inherently emotional beings. This can make us do bad things, but it also makes us care ... for climate change and the future of our planet for example.

[@davec6095]

​@@etienne8110 demonstrate that the oil companies are evil and people will move to stop them. I think that the best argument is pointing out that the ultra rich billionaires and ultra rich fossil fuel companies are conspiring to take our money and destroy our planet to further their own greed. Renewable energy and decarbonisation is the way to fight back against them. I know a few people who've never really cared about global warming and still don't, but who want solar panels and electric cars just to get away from the oil companies who've been making record profits during the cost of living crisis.

[@etienne8110]

@S7hadow if fear and anger were working, people would be full on board with ecology to prevent clilmate disaster ..

[@georgesos]

Plotting data is an art. Especially if you re trying to show real facts that people haven't thought abt before.

[@andywomack3414]

The hockey-stick graph is vertically exaggerated. I'd like to see it on a graph with O Kelvin as the base value.

[@xway2]

@@andywomack3414 That would look less dramatic, but the climate is still warming. 3 degrees would be a disaster, and showing that as a simple 1% increase would arguably be even more misleading.

[@andywomack3414]

@@xway2 We may have already crossed the threshold to disaster. And I can understand how showing the true relative magnitude of the change might lead some to think the change no big deal. However it would be a more honest depiction, and drive home the point that a few percent of difference can have huge consequences. Another point about the "hockey-stick" graph is that it shows until about 1900 the temperature of the northern hemisphere was actually declining, a trend that started about 7000 years ago. A study of Arctic Ocean sea-floor sediments indicates that the last ice-free summer occurred about 5,000 years ago. We were heading toward another glaciation, but us pesky humans have prevented that from happening. Look on the bright side of things, I guess.

[@BobQuigley]

The jig is up! Please take a look at Exxon's August 2024 global outlook executive summary. Exxon calls for net zero by 2050. States they're interested in lithium. Many many many more admissions and recommendations more inline with the laws of physics and thermodynamics which of course govern the game. What's needed now is action. Everything required to get started is available today. It's also becoming crystal clear theres gobs and gobs of $$$ to be made. PPM combined greenhouse gases pollution is accelerating. Combined emissions jumped to 57 billion tons annually. Time is not on our side. We've accomplished similar feats in the past. There's more intelligence among countries than at any time. We're connected as never before globally.

[@Wandkater]

the jig😬😬😬😬

[@timseguine2]

All of the people talking about "Bobby Brocolli style" not knowing Bobby Broccoli's style is openly aping Jon Bois is funny.

[@XavierXonora]

We are all participants in an information war. 😐

[@bartroberts1514]

You're only a participant if you take action to fight it; otherwise you're just another complicit victim.

[@jimthain8777]

@@bartroberts1514 Both of you are right! He's right because even the 'complicit' victims are participants in a war. You are right because those who don't fight are used by those who do. To have a war you must have sides, and everyone gets assigned a side. If you are a 'complicit victim' you've just been assigned to the side of the deniers whether you like that or not.

[@QT5656]

Teaming up is key. Please listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt and look up theDisproof and Ceist8.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@jimthain8777 Nobody's "assigned" a side. You pick your side. Either you've picked coal-rolling, pirateering, subsidy-demanding, polluting fossil, or you've picked clean air and food. What to do about it? We know what fossil's doing; it's continuing to extract, export, exploit, and emit. If you want a world where the climate is stable enough for food to continue to grow, where ocean pH is stable enough for the sea life we've known to continue, where the air doesn't fill with wildfire smoke and the coasts aren't always under storm surge, end fossil trade little by little until there is none. 1.7% per month less fossil trade is a good rate.

[@jitteryjet7525]

If the hackers etc were such good, honest people with the best of intentions (despite being vigilantees), why don't they reveal themselves now? It would help everyone if they come forward and admit they made a mistake, and try and heal some of the harm they caused.

[@bobo-r5k6x]

The hacker released Michael Mann's data. Isn't that a good thing?

[@jitteryjet7525]

@@bobo-r5k6x No idea what you are talking about.

[@bobo-r5k6x]

@@jitteryjet7525 The release of Mann's data is sufficient justification for the hack.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@bobo-r5k6x Mann's data was always available.

[@bobo-r5k6x]

​@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 It was released by the Climategate hacker in 2009. It was definitely an ethically defensible hack in that regard.

[@helenamcginty4920]

Ha! This turned out to be very enlightening. Watched assuming it would be anti anthropomorphic climate change and thought I ought to see what it was saying.

[@birkett83]

Someone has been watching Bobby Broccoli :D (it's a great style, imitation is flattery and all that)

[@IlluminatiBG]

What's worrying here is that completely logical mechanism of tree growth seems to now depend on other factors. For tree lover scientist that is really bad news, because unless evidence is provided, it cannot be assumed that other factors could have affected tree rings in the past, meaning the statement that tree rings is a good indicator of climate may not have always been true.

[@jaykanta4326]

Which is why we use other proxies as validation for tree rings, which is how we know about the divergence problem.

[@normalchannel2185]

Except it can't be assumed that they are unrelaible. We have used other things to validate their reliability.

[@e1123581321345589144]

Why am I not surprised the Russians were involved...

[@ryanevans2655]

Oooh I’ve been waiting for this one

[@robinkelly1770]

Yeah this happened after an el nino. But the decline was still hotter than the 1995 record and has continued to climb since Ask yourself why anyone would "hide" data - they wouldn't, there is no reason.

[@sam-final_outpost]

One of your best videos! Cheers Simon.

[@charlesbrewer4747]

Possibly the least convincing defence I have ever seen of the Mann / standard version of climate science. I was waiting for an explanation of why the dendrochronological methods worked during the (unobservable) 19th century, but don't work during the (observable) current era (I don't find "We don't know" particularly persuasive). The video switches from dubious science to outright politics very suddenly, and it would appear that the refutation of the criticism of the Hockey Stick lies solely and uniquely in the alleged political bent of those who doubt the validity of the standard model. A very poorly constructed polemic which provides nothing for anyone looking for rational science in this area.

[@mrunning10]

So what you saying? The 2,400 GIGATONS of c02 WE pumped into our atmosphere has had NO effect? That what you're saying right?

[@chriscastagnetta]

As an aspiring climatology, geology, and meteorology student in college and soon university, I thank you for this video