What if climate change is real? | Katharine Hayhoe | TEDxTexasTechUniversity

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing the United States and the world. Over the coming century, it is expected to affect agriculture, energy, health, infrastructure, natural resources, national security and water availability. This assessment, which represents the most up to date and comprehensive overview of climate change impacts on the U.S., provides critical input to planning and policy at the state and national level to reduce the human influence on climate and adapt to future change.
Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., is director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech, part of the South-Central Climate Science Center. Her research focuses on developing and applying high-resolution climate projections to evaluate the future impacts of climate change on human society and the natural environment.
Hayhoe has published more than 70 peer-reviewed publications and served as lead author on key reports for the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences. Hayhoe is currently serving as lead author for the 2014 Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.
Hayhoe earned a bachelor’s of science in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx

[@robertfinch8121]

Katharine spoke recently at the Legal Symposium at EarthX in Dallas. Her presentation was jaw dropping in her presentation with scientific facts and the choices we have to make changes and if we do not make the right choices what the consequences will be.

[@grahamlyons8522]

Where is the evidence for these "scientific facts"?

[@mcwolfus8824]

I met a guy in Munich from Kuwait, and he said that the place was getting even hotter and it was a case of getting from the airconned house to the car with its aircon then to the mall on some days. The place is becoming uninhabitable.

[@LK-pc4sq]

That is what scientist said..the middle east is at risk of becoming inhabitable.

[@Emiliapocalypse]

Imagine if a solar flare or something caused a mass power outage and they didn’t have air conditioning? It would be a disaster!!

[@williamdavidwallace3904]

I was in Port Suday on the Red Sea in 1952 and IMO it was uninhabitable even back then. The temp was 100F at midnight in our ship cabins. I learned about mad dogs and Englishmen and the noon day sun.

[@Krusty-kl5ej]

tech nician before A/C no one lived in the desert, same as in parts of Texas Arizona, California, Florida

[@LK-pc4sq]

@@Emiliapocalypse yes heat stroke deaths would sky rocket.

[@claudinet8367]

I don't feel so alone now! Thank you for trying to open minds and eyes of those of us with heads in the sand still...

[@MegaSquiff]

A big thanks for spelling it out in clear simple terms.

[@aaronmcdonald9469]

Thank you Dr Hayhoe. My children and grandchildren thank you, 2

[@hersheylima5482]

Wow! seven years ago, snow in TX, pretty wimpy compared to last winter This lady has good talks

[@pauladams1814]

Coal ash - the waste material left after coal is burned - contains arsenic, mercury, lead, and over a dozen other heavy metals, many of them toxic. And disposal of the growing mounds of coal ash is creating grave risks to human health.

[@scottscontracting]

I have witnessed climate change first hand while living in Missouri. It doesn't snow as much anymore and when it does snow it melts away in days not months like the past; we also have more sleet/ice. I concur: "The climate scientist confirm my experience when they say the Earth is warming."

[@matthauslill4577]

Did you observe for at least 30 years the climate in Missouri?

[@extradynamicyou2210]

Thank you.

[@terjehauan4529]

And what if climate change is not real? Still, numbers and statics add to the fact that humans have influenced our dear planet in a bad way! But what is way more important, what do we do now? How do we transform away from 80% coal, oil, and gas to a more sustainable and low-carbon future?

[@AvangionQ]

Love TED talks, and this one is an extremely optimistic view of global warming.

[@AvangionQ]

***** The basics about climate change is that in the last century, the Earth has warmed 0.85 degrees Celsius. This is primarily due to the gradually increasing carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere trapping excess heat ~ for more details, Google Keeling Curve. As for your specific brand of denial, here is the rebuttal ... www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

[@TheDajoca]

@@AvangionQ They appear to have conveniently omitted / amended the hot period in the 1930's from that linked page.

[@350orbust]

Thank you Dr Hayhoe. My children and grandchildren thank you, too!

[@TheRobertpyoung]

Thank her for what? Propagating a hoax?

[@paulg1256]

The most dumb down presentation I have ever seen, and it still flies miles above your head....

[@TheRobertpyoung]

are you talking to me old sport?

[@paulg1256]

TheRobertpyoung depends, are you claiming she is part of the largest global conspiracy of mankind?

[@TheRobertpyoung]

It is only something a gullible person would fall for, and yes it involves big money. Even though they admit the Paris climate accord will do nothing to stop the projected rise in temps by 2100 (based on their own science), the UN will get to control trillions of dollars. So it is NOT about saving the planet and mankind, it is all about the green as in dollars. Anyone who cant see this for what it is, is daft.

[@4whirledpeas]

Wow, what a tough crowd. They did not laugh at a single joke, or participate at all. Well done, Ms. Hayhoe. It's unbelievable to me that people can use cell phones and computers (and benefit from modern medicine) and still claim that science is unreliable or doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that we can't accept that WE are causing climate change. A few years ago we were crouching under desks because between Russia and the US we had enough nukes to destroy the planet 15 - 20 times. If we could acknowledge our ability to destroy the planet with nuclear weapons, WHY has it suddenly become "impossible" for humans to destroy it by other means? The Dust Bowl was another way that human activity caused environmental disaster. We inherited the planet from those who came before us, and will leave it for generations that will follow. The boyscout/girlscout code is to leave things in good condition and ready for the next person (better than we found it). Anything else is irresponsible.

[@ChiefCabioch]

When has the weather ever duplicated from year to year? When has the weather stopped setting new records, 2015 was a record year for Oklahoma tornadoes, not a single one the entire year,

[@cyndimcmahon]

Have you ever interviewed Dr. Dorothy Boorse, professor at Gordon College, and the author of several books including "Loving the Least of These? I'd love to connect you to her.

[@cg22165]

Our current infrastructure, including our agribusiness, is optimized for conditions that existed 75 years ago. Those conditions are changing; it is not hard to predict that the outcome is, shall we say, less than optimal.

[@ChantYip]

How do you know? Do you believe Al Gore, the guy who've never takes one course in science became an expert suddenly.

[@brokkoliomg6103]

Ohhhhh don't scroll down too much, the stupidity will just hurt. I wish those sceptics/deniers would see how the scientists work and then talk with them about the topic. Even though I'm not sure if that convinces them...

[@PInk77W1]

As if no one in the history of the world has ever said “The end is near.” ???? Climate Change is the oldest hoax in the book. I can’t believe people fall for Nigerian email scams or Climate Change.

[@mypetcrow9873]

Thanks for the warning. I will ni

[@thejarjosh]

@@PInk77W1 Just the scienstist that buy into the alarm right? You dont want us listening to the skeptic scientist I bet. Ive looked over the evidence. Warming during the Modern Maximum isnt unprecedented. Cooling during the Modern Minimum wont be unprecedented either. Why did the media switch from reporting global warming to climate change. The climate has always changed so you can point to anything and screech climate change.

[@PInk77W1]

jar josh I don’t believe al Gore or the UN or Hollywood or Obama or Hillary. I hope this helps.

[@thejarjosh]

@@PInk77W1 My bad. That comment was for the OP that said they wished skeptics would listen to the scientist. I didnt realize I tagged you. I must have it reply to your comment by accident.

[@PaulLorenzini-ny2yw]

As snow fell in SA.....she proclaimed we can fix it with more taxes....money stolen. Period.

[@inkylynx7344]

This comment section causes me intense pain. Did you guys even watch the video!

[@Camburn1000]

MIS-11 look similar, in ref to temperatures?

[@ThomasDoerrArchitect]

Brilliant and well presented. Thank you.

[@gabb159]

The temp data she used is not only fraudulent, it suspiciously starts around the 1970's... when we were just coming out of a cooling period.

[@glidercoach]

@@gabb159 You are correct. It's deception by omission. They do the same with forest fire data. They show an increase of fires over the last 10 years, but in reality, it's down a staggering 80% from 90 years ago. Or they say the Arctic is burning up, but omit the temperatures are still well below freezing.

[@ellana2402]

can i ask for the transcript of this video?

[@marctorrades1760]

Up Texas

[@paleoclimatefacts8267]

I thought it was real. If not, the what exactly was the Bronze Age Optimum, the Iron/Roman age Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the early 20th century warming (1920's), and the mid-20th century cooling (~1940-1972)???

[@jaybabcock4557]

What if my aunt had balls? She would be my uncle. We don't live by what if.

[@matheusvieiradutradasilva3288]

Parabéns dra. Katharine Hayhoe, ótima palestra!

[@seejayfrujay]

This presentation has aged quite well. Heeding the message has not, sadly.

[@canadiannuclearman]

you should show the keeling diagram

[@danzel1157]

Great video. Unfortunately, we are dealing with some pretty hard-core deniers who will not accept any amount of evidence. Conspiracy theories cannot be proved or disproved, which makes them kind of perfect vehicles for all kinds of loony ideas.

[@Krusty-kl5ej]

Anthony Matthews Everyone knows there’s climate change. We’re over halfway through a 7th Quaternary interglacial. The historical record illustrates CO2 at 10X today’s 400 ppm will not disrupt this cyclical pattern - meaning we will once again see +4 km thick ice sheets over most of the northern half of the northern hemisphere

[@Gericho49]

What if climate change is not static but varies daily, monthly and each millenia, totally beyond our contol? *How to glorify an otherwise meaning life:* Convince yourself u know all the "facts". 1) become a climate evangelist, making "climate change" your new religion, without knowing how to define it. 2) convince yourself that CO2 is a pollutant that makes you sick and causes cancer, rather than why all carbon based lifeforms like you exist and flourish. 3) if u can't get a gig on Ted Talks, you can still be a TV star by buying a megaphone and gluing urself to a road, bridge or street sign. 4) that mining will destroy the planet but dont drive your car or use a lithium powered smart phone to tell anyone. 5) that the 3% of atmospheric CO2 that comes from fossil fuels is the sole cause of *"never before seen"* droughts, fires and floods. _(while ignoring the 50% destruction of rainforests)_ 6) scare monger the kids by saying we'll all die of heat stroke or be underwater in the next decade much like Al Gore said about New York 10 or so years ago 7) lie about oceans rising when 100years of accurate tidal measurements at Fort Dennison in Sydney harbour have actually shown a slight fall. 8) assume in the computer models that every major weather event or climate variation is a "catastropic" event. (much like shark attacks increase in summer due to ice cream consumption) 9) Assume it's all due solely to fossil fuels, and not deforestation, population growth, unpredictable sunspot activity, earthquakes, undersea volcanoes, continental drift, magnetic pole shifts etc etc. 8) Go on a safari to study the Bengalese tiger. Find one or two starving or sick then lobby for $10million from some NGO to study them. 9) convince a gullible audience that denying the link between smoking and cancer is analogous to CO2 being a pollutant and destroying the planet. Now, want another dozen reasons - like the lie about "97% of scientists..."?

[@michaelgugliotta5206]

Apparently if climate change isn't real, that also means air pollution is false, and that we aren't gonna run out of fossil fuels either, and even if they do they won't get more expensive with scarcity, and even if air pollution is real, it's my freedom to pollute everyone's air as much I want, and authoritarian for them to force me to stop, my life would be so different is the already public energy deliverer used cheaper renewable energy instead, or if I had a to drive a different car that didn't harm everyone's health. Everything about this situation is frustrating

[@Krusty-kl5ej]

Michael Gugliotta that would be a pretty misguided conclusion A proper inference is CO2 isn’t a pollutant at less than .05%. There’s certainly effluents from fossil fuels that are like dioxins, pcb’s

[@michaelgugliotta5206]

@@Krusty-kl5ej I wasn't trying to say CO2 is dangerous at current levels, I was just saying that switching over from fossil fuels makes sense of the other pollutants they emit, and the fact they are going to run out, and your life doesn't have to change that much

[@sirfith]

You cannot limit it to 10 years of data. Limits it to 50 years of data.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

Sea levels rose by 25 cm since 1800

[@longjohn526]

George Applegate explained The 5 characteristics of Science Denial 1. Fake Experts (For instance George himself) 2. Logical fallacies 3. Impossible expectations 4. Cherry Picking 5. Conspiracy Theories (He has plenty of those in relation to science funding)

[@longjohn526]

Long John BTW George is currently a Fiction Writer ... Science Fiction but Fiction none the less

[@longjohn526]

***** There is ZERO evidence of that happening There is however plenty of evidence of Deniers lying their asses off .... Like you just did

[@Aanthanur]

***** got any evidence for your accusations?

[@C_R_O_M________]

@Long John so let me get this straight: the fact that YOU ARE DOING something about climate change makes the presupposition upon your acting a fact? Hahahahahahaha, (really sorry, I couldn't help laughing). P.S. George Applegate seems to understand science, I'm not sure about you though.

[@RodMartinJr]

+Long John, that sounds like a list of Liberal traits. *_1. Skeptical climate scientists? Here's a short list of some of them:_* Dr. David Legates, Center for Climatic Research, U. of Delaware Jorgen Peder Steffensen, curator, Niels Bohr Institute, Dept. of Geophysics Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville (former IPCC lead author) Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, U. of Winnipeg Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, U. of Ottawa Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT Professor Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, U. of London Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action Professor Frederick Singer, former director, US National Weather Service Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, U. of Virginia, former IPCC author. Klaus-Eckert Puls, German meteorologist and physicist *_2. Logical Fallacies? You mean like the liberal logical fallacies of,_* -- Climate change deniers (ad hominem)? -- Scientific consensus (oxymoron)? -- Science is settled (oxymoron)? -- Stopping global warming in an ongoing Ice Age (wrong direction)? *_3. Impossible Expectations? You mean like,_* -- Stopping climate change? Something that has been ongoing for 4.5 billion years? ... You get the picture!

[@bozk488]

Excellent presentation. Even Republicans should be able to understand this talkc

[@acs197]

***** Really, Justin? Get your head out of the sand fool.

[@johngray9098]

***** # conservativebozos, # xenophobes, # racists. The GOP is the largest collection of morons assembled in history,if you doubt it then "refudiate" me. Please slink back to wherever you came from and make sure to genuflect in front of the picture of the Wild Alaskan Dingbat (Palin)that hangs from the ceiling in your bedroom.

[@alternatefutures]

Because they're mostly Christian? i.e. doesn't "What if Climate Change is Real?" sound a lot like "What if God is Real?" If serious man-made climate change actually is real, then we'd better just accept the consequences now, because even the people who believe in it aren't doing anything meanful to address it. Oh, except flying around the world giving talks, patting themselves on the back for recycling, and smiling in front of TV cameras for creating useless legislation. But I'm sure virtue signalling will save us.

[@Wajz3]

Edwin Rydberg "anything meanful to address it". Do you understand how hard it is to fight against the multi-billion dollar fossil fuel industry? Especially when almost 50% of Americans believe what fossil fuel industry says. I find it interesting how you attack the messenger. These speeches and talks are ultimately important because we need education for Americans to understand and change things.

[@alternatefutures]

willumps - How hard is it to make life choices so you don't have to use a gas-powered vehicle? My family has done it (potentially - although my wife still drives to work instead of walking 10 minutes! - but we're not greenies). First step -- you settle for less. Second step -- you fight them with your pocket book. If people are serious, they make choices that reflect their convictions. If they fail to make those choices then they're not serious. Companies respond to threats to their bank account and fossil fuel companies are far from the only possible targets. However, I was also commenting on the many outspoken, hypocritical celebrities who jet from continent to continent giving talks, while spewing far more than their share of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And that's not even touching on the products (clothes, electronics, food) we buy that are made halfway around the world and transported by oil-leaking ship to nearby stores for our convenience. Or our 'need' for overseas vacations because, well, we deserve it, don't we? And what about our incredibly wasteful entertainment? How much waste is produced from making a TV series, or a movie? Oh, but we have to have our diversions! If people are truly afraid and are serious about making changes, they act the part, starting with their own life. They don't whine about it and suggest everyone else change first. Ergo, if it's real and a real threat, then we'd better get ready, because it's coming regardless of our rhetoric. And if it's not, then the rhetoric is all just a bunch of, dare I say it, hot air. Either way, the time for worrying has passed.

[@mikeheath6516]

You say that you can't throw out the data you don't like, someone should have told that to Michel Mann before he started corrupting data and referring to it as the "Trick"

[@jeffgold3091]

the increase in global average temperature is not due to an increase in maximum temperatures , it is due to warmer night time temperatures and winter lows ( likely from urban heat island effect ). so the climate is actually becoming more moderate....most powerful hurricane to ever make landfall was 1935 Keys hurricane . nothing has occurred like the Labor Day storm of 1938 . only hurricane to hit California was 1939 . her anecdotal evidence is thin at best . ....6000 years ago during the holocene optimum the earth was warmer than today , with no arctic summer sea ice .....co2 ? all life on the planet is made of co2 derived from the atmosphere thru plants .

[@lalaland1427]

I have heard of the climate changing since primary school, and have been taught why it is happening and how since middle school (roughly yes, but still...) I am actually baffled, and sadly amused, some people still need to be convinced over it... Hello ? What world are you leaving in people ? As to this presentation, it is overly simplistic and doesn't really explain the darker consequences of climate changes (for example : flood, Yes, at first, but also a more massive number of people on a reduced terrain . And all the conflicts that would ensue.) As for windmills, it is a good alternative energy. Sure. But it has it's downpoints too. (It disrupts the local fauna, is very loud, and can't be put just anywhere)

[@C_R_O_M________]

@Lala land so the fact that you are hearing this for all your life makes it a scientific fact? Interesting! P.S. FYI In industrial England there were actual "scientific studies" that "proved" , "beyond doubt" I may add, that burning wood rather than cheap coal, produces better quality steel. As a result of this pseudoscientific "fact" all Britain was stripped of its forests (the consequences are visible even today).

[@MarkLawsonY3K]

Lead the way? Our local citizen owned electric company owns ZERO wind turbines and facing a giant crisis shortly as we lose an important contract. Imagine all the south facing roofs in homes that the owners own the electric company. Wouldn't you want to contribute lowering the cost with a few solar cells adding to the grid? The $10 billion 100 year water plan considers NOT the relatively clean runoff from those solar panels. And if the solar gain in Texas could fuel the world two times over....I've heard it said that the rain (in an average year) coming off the roof is greater than the total water use this year. And Mr. Conservative says the increased CO2 is good for crops. Yikes

[@irkone]

Katharine “Let me hear ya say” HAYHOE!

[@bandicoot5412]

It has everything to do with the individual, not anything else, stop using anything that will harm the environment, period. That means any mode of transportation and communication, heating and air conditioning systems, stop now, get aware!

[@C_R_O_M________]

You are obviously brainwashed, start using a different "brain detergent".

[@bandicoot5412]

It's the consumer, that is demanding the weapons that are killing the planet, get real! Stop now! Stop living a lie, stop now! Go to the source, stop now!

[@C_R_O_M________]

Define "killing the planet".

[@bandicoot5412]

Our lives depend on constant consuming of products that, thus, use practices that inevitably send toxins out in mass quantities, these add to the, already, natural destructive forces. The only thing we can do is to stop our practices, and begin a new paradigm, by evaluating our uses. This will help on our side from accelerating the on going, killing of our planet, it's just logic, evaluate our consuming trends, and stop the process now, stop now. This means all the stuff your life currently depends on, has to be reevaluated, and constructed in a way that will not add harm to the killing of the planet, what more could I say?

[@Demetrenos]

Wrong map. Medieval warming and other warming periods removed. So was the little ice age. I remember the 70's and the ice time scare of that time. Now we are in for a grand solar minimum and cooling.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

That's misinformation.

[@Demetrenos]

@@Wind-oh-Wishp That's why I pointed it out.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

@@Demetrenos I meant your comment. Those do not account for the scale and speed of climate change, and the ice age scare was actually circulated by oil companies.

[@Demetrenos]

@@Wind-oh-Wishp Well, the Medieval warming period was warmer than now. The Roman warm period was even warmer and the Minoan warm period even warmer. You have been brainwashed well. Remove the urban heat island effect from the data and there have been zero extra warming.

[@matthauslill4577]

The warming during the last 40 years was 1.3 C per decade as per satellite, as well as per weather balloon measurements.

[@albertrogers8537]

A fluid system that receives more energy becomes more chaotic. So your average increase in worldwide warmth can easily give you colder winters, worse floods, and worse droughts.

[@RodMartinJr]

But it doesn't, at least not by every paper I've ever read. In fact, Dr. Hubert Lamb (first director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia) reported that the Little Ice Age produced many more and far stronger storms in Western Europe than we've had in the 20th century. Why? Because wind only blows because of temperature differences, and when you cool down the planet, you move polar cold closer to equatorial heat. This is why Venus, with all its heat, has virtually zero wind on the surface (perhaps 10 kph) and pristine, million-year-old meteor craters. And Jupiter, with its immense cold, has constant storms, some larger than our entire planet. And droughts? How the heck does land ever get water in the first place. If you had zero warmth, then the land would be bone dry forever. Only through warmth do you get rain. And the warmer it is the more rain you have. That's why during the far warmer Holocene Optimum, the Sahara was green for 3,000 years.

[@russellcook5440]

O.M.G. The debate is not whether climate change is happening, not even the collective lot of skeptics of disagree with that. The debate is whether what little global warming we've seen over the last century is primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gases. The notion that 'climate change' opinion is based on your perceptions of the current temperature is simply preposterous. When Ms Hayhoe lops her own graph while complaining about 'skeptics lopped-off graphs', that's even more preposterous.

[@canadiannuclearman]

if wind and solar are so great why has Texis build coal plants. Ask govenor Perry

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

Writing from 2024, coal costs 30 times more than renewables. Renewables are 20-30$/mWh and coal is 710-770 $/mWh

[@SharifKamawal]

Climate change from Afghanistan

[@celestialteapot3310]

Mmmm... now let me think,

[@angelmunoz3462]

If GOD said,the end is gonna be by fire why we want to change that,is gonna be like GOD saids, period!!

[@HappySmilyGuy]

You're correct Munoz. In the end it is going to be like God says. But maybe now isn't the time God has planned for the end to be. Maybe this is actually just us not loving our neighbour: causing the massively unjust suffering for people in some of the poorest countries on this beautiful planet that God gave us to look after. They haven't been the cause of the emissions rise, but are suffering its consequences first and the most extreme. Maybe God would love it if we should act less selfishly, and instead, tried to seek justice for those people. The world is His and everything in it. Maybe now is the time that we act as good stewards of the incredible gift of His planet that He has trusted us to look after. Maybe now is the time that we choose to love our global neighbours as we love ourselves. God bless you Munoz :) He loves you a lot!

[@godisawesomeasalways6004]

@@HappySmilyGuy 😊

[@matthauslill4577]

The son of our god , Jesus Christ , was convinced that the end of a the world will come during his lifetime or short after. God succumbed here an error. The climate alarmist could possibly also be terribly wrong.

[@IhorFiglus]

Although I do not dispute that the climate is changing, I am not convinced that human activity, while having an impact, is the proximate cause of it. To get a better picture of earth's climate, we should look at the record of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years. Further, to claim that those who argue against climate change are using data selectively and then do the same thing to bolster your own position is disingenuous. However, the bigger problem I have with this talk is the conclusion that claims that we can so simply have all the clean energy we need from sources like wind and solar. That myth was quickly dispelled in last year's power fiasco in Texas and has proven to be a false solution in Germany (which actually has higher emissions since their wholesale adoption of this method of energy generation). In the end, wind and solar do not reduce carbon emissions, damage the environment, and burden the population with expensive and unreliable energy. The best clean energy solution for now is in thorium powered nuclear reactors.

[@ChantYip]

What if it not real?

[@AussieRic]

youtube.. June 2015 Breaking News Chem Trails PROOF Geo engineering Cern PHD Physicist explains Chem Trails

[@Stash186]

Word salid....

[@glidercoach]

3:58 Nice animation of the earth warming. Where does the data come from, because in 1900, the only reliable and quality data came from the USA. I see the ocean is well documented in the animation. How can this be when measuring ocean temperatures started in 1990? This doesn't pass the smell test.

[@LK-pc4sq]

radio carbon dating! Coal oil and natural gas have is a different carbon isotope vs Planet generated Carbon. Scientist went to the greenland ice sheet and drilled 2 miles of ice and then sliced the core samples to measure Carbon. 798,000 years of co2 was trapped in that ice core sample. co2 levels sky rocketed after the start of the industrial revolution.

[@glidercoach]

@@LK-pc4sq What in the world does your response have to do with anything I wrote?

[@glidercoach]

@@amymalimichi377 I have looked it up. The hottest temperatures recorded on earth were in the 1930's and the 1800's when Co2 levels were low. The climate is cyclical and is entering a cooling phase. The Arctic has more ice today than 100 years ago and the Antarctic recorded record ice recently. Sea levels are steady and not accelerating. All my data comes from internationally recognised scientific agencies. You are being manipulated for profit and don't know it. KZbin bans me from posting any links to stop debate. The information is available if you look. Clearly you are believing what you are hearing. It's wrong.

[@seibrav]

"We can't throw out data just because we don't like it." Climategate, anyone?

[@Aanthanur]

Sei brav what about climate "gate" ? emails taken out of context by idiots that have no clue about the topic talked about in the mails. all investigations showed no scientific misconduct at all. so what about it?

[@RodMartinJr]

+Aanthanur DC, *_NOT out of context_* on merely your say so. A judge found Phil Jones had committed a crime, but the statute of limitations had run out. And when you look at the programmer's coding comments that came along with the emails, you know with a certainty that they were bending the numbers to achieve a politically favorable result. *_That's scientific fraud!!!_*

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Rod, what is your source for this claim? I do not think it is correct.

[@spongyfungus]

The most inconvenient truth is to omit saying that climate change “science” is actually based on models and not on facts. Actual temperature records do not show a warming planet, nor do tide gages show rising sea levels. Al Gore’s models had lower Manhattan under water by 2014 , ice free polar caps by 2012 , the Maldives entirely submerged by 2010, polar bears extinct by 2020 (their numbers have multiplied by 6 in the last 20 years)... the list of inconvenient facts is endless, but you get the picture..

[@digedag7480]

True words! Nodding from Germany.

[@williekp1]

I could watch this if she stated the sources of her data and whether it had been adjusted.

[@OmeSees]

Yes, it has been adjusted. Because measurements need to be calibrated, and local effects need to be corrected for to be able to compare data from different locations. A thermometer in a city gives a different reading than one in an ocean - cities trap heat. Thermometers used now use different techniques than those 100 years ago, and data needs to be corrected to make a sensible comparison. So blindly equaling data adjustment with fraud is utterly wrong. In fact, not adjusting data at all could be considered fraud, because one is not presenting a fair comparison in that case. Of course, when data is adjustment, the adjustments do need to be defended: why is it done, how is it done. Luckily, all those things -are- documented in the scientific literature dealing with climate change. And scientists have also reported the effect of those corrections on global warming predictions. Their finding? Global warming appears worse if no corrections are made. At least, if data corrections were part of some global conspiracy, wouldn't the corrections be biased -towards- emphasizing climate change? The truth is, scientists are not about making climate change look as bad as possible. They want to show a picture that presents the truth as well as possible. For that corrections are necessary, and scientists will make them.

[@evagelosdrinis7656]

Carbon is one of the building blocks of life . Now it is considered a killer.

[@geraldtomkins5545]

Water is probably the most important building block of life and we are encouraged by our doctors to drink plenty of it to stay healthy. But you can drink too much water. You can even die by drinking too much water. It's called hyponatremia. A radio station in Colorado had a contest to win a play station. Who ever drank the most water in a specified time won the play station. A man called in and warned of the danger of drinking too much water. It was not taken seriously so the contest continued. The result was a lady, trying win a play station for her kids, died by hyponatremia. I didn't know it was possible to die from drinking too much water. Tragically, a woman in Colorado and a radio station didn't know either. Someone did know. But his warning was dismissed. I don't study the climate. I'm guessing you don't either. But some people do. We should listen the knowledge of those people. I won't dismiss their warning. I hope you don't either.

[@amosjsoma]

Without man here to cause it, how the heck did the earth start to warm after the last ice age. And, the one before that and the one before that. Why don't you climate scientists ever talk about that? When you show global warming charts, the charts should start at the end of the last ice age to be meaningful. If the earth is warm today, why was it warmer 120,000 years ago and the sea level 25' higher than today? Kinda hard to blame man for that, isn't it? We should be preparing for the inevitable sea level rise and quit thinking that a Paris Climate Accord or a carbon tax will prevent it.

[@inkylynx7344]

A lot of factors can effect average teperature such variation in earths orbit, different life forms, and volcanic activity. Earth does change temperature naturally, but very very slowly over many thousands of years. The rate we are changing at right now is terrifyingly fast. We are supposed to be in an iceage right now.

[@1man1bike1road]

plenty in the comments wishing for the coal jobs to come back

[@jfreed27]

renewables employ 3 x as many as all fossil fuel production combined

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

Writing from 2024, coal costs 30 times more than renewables. Renewables are 20-30$/mWh and coal is 710-770 $/mWh

[@bobleclair5665]

300 years ago,blame it on co2, forget about all the trees that have been cut in 300years, imagine all that co2 that was taken up by trees,,how come thats not in your equation or grafts ? Or maybe someone should do a research on jet streams

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

Well, actually are researcjes on jet streams and they are also taken into account in climate research. And humanity has demonstrably affected the global climate for 200 years, and since the 1800s global sea levels have risen by around 25 cm.

[@PInk77W1]

“We have 12yrs to live because of climate change.” AOC

[@franklance9167]

Learn how to quote.

[@PInk77W1]

Frank Lance why if we are going to be dead in 12yrs? LoL. Learn how to cut back on the Kool Aid

[@mattcrouch9348]

Not what she said.

[@grahamlyons8522]

We need a Ted Talk entitled "What if global warming is not real?".

[@leonstitanius8377]

"What if it's real." really... This is a religious argument. PAL REVIEWED science also produced "BIG PHARMA" I deny falsehoods.

[@festina_lente7655]

I had the misfortune of meeting and speaking with prof. hayhoe after this forum and her old lady breath was so bad I had to step a couple feet back to get away from the fumes.

[@PaulLorenzini-ny2yw]

climate change is profitable...for some. especially women that call themselves smart. Women vs Man lifespan.......tell us about that that......

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

Actually average lifespan for men is lower because they are on average larger and our heart gets exhausted faster. But you know, if we'd reduce air-pollution we'd all live longer.

[@ruimarcelino1984]

Horrible. Clima is changing and she states she knows why... Ridiculous.

[@amosjsoma]

Climate change is real and continuous and if current climate change is caused by us, what caused the Holocene Maximum warm period 4,000 years ago and the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1350? During both of those periods the earth was warmer than it is today and man didn't cause it.

[@farche2]

the giggly schoolgirl act is cringe

[@kano1957]

What if it is a hoax?

[@soybean3423]

What if cancer is a hoax?

[@jfreed27]

what if it isn't?

[@TheDajoca]

It would really help if NASA and NOAA hadn't altered their historic records, which is easily verified by comparing modern graphs to older ones. It would help if the IPCC weren't recorded as saying it was nothing to do with the environment, but was entirely economic and then trying to get scientists to "hide" the inconvenient medieval warm period. It would help if the fabled 97% was a genuine figure and not in reality about 2%. It would help if any of the doom and gloom predictions since the 1970's had actually happened. Every time it's "x disaster will happen in less than 10 years". It would help if any scientist who dares to question the climate change facts isn't defunded, dismissed and unpersoned. Stop lying to us and give us actual, measurable and verifiable facts, then we may have more in common than you think.

[@bladder1010]

What if the Easter Bunny were real?

[@benighted09]

Solar power the world? Great climate scientist but she needs to work on her engineering skills. Nuclear will need to be 90% of our power. A significant portion of that power needs to be used to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. Good luck with that.

[@geot4647]

Mark Jacobson's claims are way off the mark but constantly repeated as gospel. He wants so many wind turbines that we'd have no scenery left in wind-prone areas. It's already gotten bad enough.

[@daltonduncan7285]

You're wrong, we do need the extra blanket. 25% of the planet's surface is covered in ice and snow permanently. We were heading into another glacial maximum. If we didn't add more CO2 the Glaciers would be scraping us off the planet. The extra CO2 is distributing heat more evenly around the planet. It's not a bad thing.

[@moodySnoopy]

You are so much smarter than any other scientist out there. Bunch of charlatans right. All the proof of the ice melting is just fake then yea?

[@daltonduncan7285]

@@moodySnoopy You should be thankful the ice is melting. Would you prefer the glaciers to be advancing? By the way, you can look up the mass of both the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic Ice Cap and divide it by the average yearly melt. Doing that will give you the length of time before they melt away. The Greenland ice sheet will take about 14,000 years to melt at its current rate, and that is if it melts every year. Last year it actually gained ice. The Antarctic Ice cap will take over 100,000 years if it maintained its current mass and calving rate. But it's actually gaining mass too. Look it up. Or keep swallowing propaganda and head for the hills to avoid drowning in "rising seas". By the way, the Marshall Islands have been gaining in area, contrary to worries they were being swallowed by the ocean.

[@Ron_the_Skeptic]

1936 was the warmest of the last 100 years. 2014 wasn't even close!

[@ToddWrightthedrummer]

That is demonstrably wrong. The last 5 years have been the warmest on record. Any year in the 20th C other than the 1998 El Niño year didn't even crack the top 10.

[@katecollins9555]

And the huge amount of bombs blasting the earth

[@saiello2061]

There's big bucks in jumping on the climate change band wagon...

[@soybean3423]

There's even more bucks in denying it, plus, it's easier.

[@alienweirdo8337]

Hoo boy. She does not have a speaker voice. Sorry, it's not possibly to ignore it. If TED gets a technician, it's fixed. Moving on. Love her last name (nick?) :D But anyway, not a very interesting talk since it's dumbed down, sorry, popularized enough to where it's not Science anymore. Oh, and: World-class "football"? Yes, you in USA sure are world champions of american football in USA, which is the whole world. Um.

[@alienweirdo8337]

But she said World Class team.

[@alienweirdo8337]

Mark Martin Also, we mustn't forget the Swiss Army Knife Jousting team. Clog-wearing Champions of the World, they are. I mean, just because you don't take up that sport in your country is no excuse. I mean, they rightly call themselves World Class until another country steps up and goes through the gruelling nightmare that it takes to be a champion.

[@alienweirdo8337]

Ha ha :) No, just the best in USA = best in the world thing. Was used for boxing champions etc. back when. Just sounded funny coming from her :)

[@woodwyrm]

Alien Weirdo she means American Football jackoff.

[@Usefulmusic]

But we mustn't look at the antarctic because the ice is increasing there.

[@user-cp3ju2fz4z]

No the glaciers in the antarctic are vanishing this is why there is more sea ice in colder seasons, because all the fresh water of the melting does freeze there in this region - but this all is the meting process not an increasing process - there were some idiots of lobbyists in the USA claiming this false fact of no melting and one of them is also the new President and Exxon Mobile in the USA, I never heard such childish uneducated non-sense, this is far off from primary school knowledge.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@whateveryournameisinyourAsianlanguage, adhering to NON_arguments (ad hominem) like "childish", "uneducated non-sense" (sic), "idiots of lobbyists" (sic) doesn't prove anything it makes YOU look like an idiot and a child.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Asian lady I have doctoral studies in Philosophy what are the chances that I have a misunderstanding in such terms over you?

[@user-cp3ju2fz4z]

Then I can call you an Idiot even more to be right and not using "ad Hominem" also do not want to. The definition: "Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack." I did explain it before and now I try it again, why you are an idiot and why also now this is not ad hominem, it is very different a conclusion of your content and not your personality... 1. I am allowed to call you idiot, because you educated yourself and claiming to understand the definition of "add hominem", which you do not do at all. 2. You claim I would use "add hominem" against you, but I do not now and not before and I am not even able to do because I do not know something about you. You come up with uneducated claims (which are no arguments it is false facts) which I did disprove all the time with education -> leads to that you are stupid is a conclusion not even an argument !!! And not an argument of "add hominem" at all !! When you do and say something stupid you are stupid, this is not add hominem at all, it is a conclusion I can do and can prove by the mistakes you have done and has nothing to do with: Who you are, where I do not care at all, I do not care at all what a person someone is, only what he/she or whatsoever has to say is my focus and if this is right to education, when it is wrong by education it is stupid -> leads to the person is in this sense stupid, uneducated = conclusion and no "ad hominem" at all. 3. I did need to explain this here to an expert more then one time. You want to to disprove my conclusions ? Or you coming-up again with another false attack on me I would use ad Hominem ?

[@C_R_O_M________]

NO actually I can call you unethical for not having the decency to go back to your comments and see that you ACTUALLY used the language I replicated in my comment. I actually copy pasted what YOU WROTE, what don't you understand?

[@andrew6516]

I appreciate the information provided, but God she is so difficult to listen to.

[@bigike1313]

It isn’t.

[@georgeapplegate3535]

She has a financial conflict of interest in that she receives funding from the EPA.

[@350orbust]

George Applegate #RedHerring. Not even the EPA can influence thermometers! LOL. And don't forget to mention, all of those Congressmen who actively deny the evidence of physics and thermometers that receive hundreds of thousands of $$$$ from the fossil fuel industry. #hypocrisy

[@georgeapplegate3535]

350orbust You haven't been keeping up if you think thermometers haven't been "influenced." I would love to know where she got the graph at 10:28. It didn't come from thermometers, even "adjusted" thermometers. That fairytale says there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. It looks to me like a worse fabrication than Mann's hockey stick. She even says "no major natural cycles." She is too well educated to believe that. If you think money influences the debate, you should know that more than 100 times as much $$$$ flows into demonizing CO2 than from the oil companies.

[@350orbust]

George Applegate LOL. 8 out of 10 of the richest companies in the world are oil and gas! #Realitycheck required but anybody who doesn't understand basic physics probably isn't interested in a reality check.

[@georgeapplegate3535]

350orbust Just because I don't have a degree in physics from Berkeley… Oh wait, I do. Do follow the money. It will take you to the greens that spend billions a year on propaganda. Below are annual revenue figures for a few of the dozens of green organizations: Greenpeace 2014 $400M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Funding WWF 2010 $669M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature NRDC 2011 $119M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council Nature Conservancy 2013 $949M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy Conservation International 2010 $78M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_International Environmental Defense Fund 2013 $121M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Defense_Fund National Wildlife Fund 2008 $88M en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wildlife_Federation Sierra Club 2013 $64M www.sierraclubfoundation.org/sites/sierraclubfoundation.org/files/TSCF-Annual-Report-2013.pdf Add to that the billions the government hands out to scientists whose research supports their lust for more regulation. Katherine Hayhoe is one of them, to the tune of millions. And BTW, George Soros far outspends the Koch Brothers.

[@350orbust]

George Applegate AND re: your unsupported comment re thermometers, you need to google Richard Muller (former climate skeptic) and his Koch-funded study, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study. This is what Muller wrote in the NY Times after the conclusion of the study:Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

[@johnquest3102]

THANK GAWD we have climate hypocrites telling us to sacrifice while KH flies high over head to the next tax payer funded climate conference. Just how much warming has there been in the last 20 years? Negligible!

[@raghavm2218]

Where did you get your information from

[@buckaroundandfindout]

another thing kind of like the fossil record I don't trust the temperature record... Because the dating process for carbon is based on the fossil record... Someone had to guess at some point kind of like electricity... So give me a f****** break you guys don't have this work down to a science. What you have is a magic show and a bunch of people who are willing to pay the price for the admission.

[@ToddWrightthedrummer]

Lots wrong here. Carbon dating does not rely at all on fossils. Radiometric C dating is based upon direct measurements of the sample. Two things are known. Biological species intake the three C isotopes at preferential rates. Then it's simply assaying the sample for relative levels of daughter products. The decay rate is known to an astonishingly exact rate. Climate science is based upon well established physical properties and a couple of physical laws. This is anything but guesswork. You can find some good info on KZbin, but it takes some calculus and physics to get a firm handle on it. This series is very good: Introduction to Atmospheric Dynamics.

[@buckaroundandfindout]

@@ToddWrightthedrummer your world must be an astonishing place of rainbows and exact measurements and all kinds of things, but in my world there's all kinds of errors and people make mistakes all the time bro you know I'm just trying to simply point that out.

[@ToddWrightthedrummer]

@@buckaroundandfindout No. Not at all. My world is the one where large errors are made smaller by better data and equations. I subscribe to no ultimate truth, as new data might upend that kind of rigid thinking. Granted, science is far from perfect, but if there is a better system for describing the world as we find it - not how we wish it to be - humans have not found it.

[@Usefulmusic]

The climate always changes so it may be colder in the next five years.

[@JohnnyBeeDawg]

This woman actually has a job?? This is pure bunk. She has no idea what the temperature of the Earth is, not what it should be. She out right lied about “last year” being warmest. NCDC changed the temp record, too. This is idiocy.

[@jerryhoward2661]

Everything you just said is outright wrong.

[@JohnnyBeeDawg]

Jerry Howard OK...what is the current temperature of the Earth, and what should it be?

[@Triple5live]

After listening to both arguments on CC, I sit on the fence, but if I had to put my money down I’d bet with the skeptics. Their argument seems more plausible and the predictions of the pro CC have already landed flat, didn’t happen. Oops. I was convinced by pro CC until I realised I actually knew very little about it, did some research, and was surprised to find it is not settled, sorry.

[@matthewhopkins163]

The earth heats and cools, imagine that. Those damn wooly mammoth's must have been throwing so much co2 into our atmosphere 😭😭😂😂😂😭😭

[@223Drone]

@Matthew Hopkins Climate change deniers like you don't understand that there was an unnatural increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution. Climate change naturally takes thousands of years the current changes in climate are have happening in hundreds of years which is unnatural.

[@jayb9687]

Hayhoe is a propagandist. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[@MrVicmask]

ROFLMO.... We are still in an ice age

[@michaeljohnson-hm8rr]

This is just political science BS.

[@samiam1150]

What if pigs could fly? The climate has been changing ever since the world was formed. It has gone through cold periods and warm periods. Species learn to adapt of become extinct. The Great Lakes by a succession of glaciers, the fossil record indicates that this same area was once a tropical paradise long before man played any significant role to play. There hasn't been any significant change in the climate in the past fifteen years. The sky isn't falling and I'm not the least bit concerned that it will.

[@raykowalchuk3812]

+samiam1150 "There hasn't been any significant change in the climate in the past fifteen years" I suspect that you didn't watch the whole video. The part that applies to your comment is at 5:00. All your evidence is true -- unfortunately, it's not actually evidence of anything. That there always was climate change would be a perfect answer if somebody said the climate is changing for the first time. What's happening is a dramatic shift of climate change in comparison with the pre-industrial average. 2015 was the 39th consecutive year above the 20th century average, despite the 4000 year descent we see in the graph at 10:30. Looked like we were heading for an ice age -- what made such a dramatic right-angle change? The human race learning to burn stuff. Your reference to Chicken Little is appropriate for anybody who accepts only a small, selective amount of evidence. "The past 15 years" is a timeframe carefully selected by climate change deniers, not to give you the truth, but a false explanation that you have already decided to swallow and regurgitate.

[@samiam1150]

+Ray Kowalchuk I've been on this planet for almost 70 years. Over those years I've seen bitter cold with snow and heatwaves accompanied by drought, but I haven't seen any change in the climate. There still aren't any palm trees in Ohio.

[@raykowalchuk3812]

If nobody plants palm trees there won't be palm trees. ;) Climate change means more erratic temperatures and moisture in the atmosphere -- this sometimes means snowstorms. Do you find that they trusted scientists more, 60 years ago? Nowadays, good science can be crushed by bad journalists. Every national academy of science in every major country in the world recognizes that mankind is affecting climate change. Who have you been listening to? Or is it just watching for palm trees?

[@BlueberryWinter]

+Ray Kowalchuk What "right angle change"? That statement is nonsense. Also referring to "climate change deniers" is nonsense. The closest one could get to a "climate change denier" would be a politician who thinks the climate can be "dialed in" to some static optimum and held there by passing a law. Nature is not so easily bound by wishful thinking. *The effects of anthropogenic climate change is happening now, people are dying (not in Texas, but in equatorial and desert countries)...* ...and? People die everywhere and all the time, from constant climate change and any other reason mortal creatures die. Do we have ANY real figures on how many people would have lived on a few more years if oil and coal had never been burned? No. Do you have any vague idea on how many people would have never been born to be alive today if oil and coal had not been used to advance civilization? Think somewhere along the lines of 5-7 BILLION people. And several generations before them. Our modern civilization and ability to support a larger healthier population with ever-lengthening lifespans has only been possible BECAUSE we burned oil and coal. *...and storms are becoming more erratic and turbulent.* Again, nonsense, and non-science. There has been a LOT of speculation of "more erratic and turbulent" storm seasons IN THE FUTURE (always the future) - all coming from Al Gore's camp, none of it backed up by current or historical observation or statistic, global warming or not. * "There hasn't been any significant change in the climate in the past fifteen years" I suspect that you didn't watch the whole video. The part that applies to your comment is at 5:00. All your evidence is true -- unfortunately, it's not actually evidence of anything.* Huh? So when observed phenomenon doesn't match up with the "catastrophe" speculation and erroneous models, let's just throw out the OBSERVED data? I think not. Let's include it into the broader collected data and stop "normalizing" it out to suit preconceptions and doomsday fantasies. What I am saying here is that spouting nonsense is not helpful. Al Gore thought it was helpful, and admitted he exaggerated his movie's catastrophic predictions by an order of magnitude to make it more exciting and sensational for his viewing audience. He justified it as a means to gain necessary attention to an otherwise potentially boring and non-immediate "problem". The result has been a purely justified and cynical backlash from more savvy and sceptical individuals on one hand and a wholehearted acceptance from politicians seeing the value of a "threat to us all" to advance their own powers and agendas. Caught in the middle are scientists with families and careers to think of and a generally science-illiterate population mass who are easily spooked by loud noises. The proposed costs of preventing the unpreventable is being gleefully reported by politicians (who just cannot WAIT to be handling all that money as if it were their own) to be in the TRILLIONS. The current open proposal to "cure" climate change are to reduce all man-produced carbon to levels that pre-date the industrial revolution and a population in excess of 1 billion. HOW is this going to happen? Search for it as hard as you can... you will find no government official or scientist who can explain the actual mechanism that will make this possible and still maintain current population and what we have come to expect from a civilization - comfort, relative safety, pursuit of happiness and freedoms within a rule of law. They really don't WANT to voice it - because it is just that horrible. Just think of what the above proposal MEANS. A collapse of civilization from energy starvation. A drastic reduction of population from literal starvation. A world government to enforce a global oil/coal ban and also strict involuntary birth control. That is just the "tip"... and the only possible way the population would accept this is not through persuasion, but by having a gun held to our children's heads. Think about it.

[@samiam1150]

+Ray Kowalchuk According to the fossil record the area around the Great Lakes was a tropical paradise and had palm trees.. The problem being that this isn't good science. It's a bad computer model. Nothing that their computer model indicated would happen is happening. There are just too many variables to be considered, the sun's activity being one of the major drivers of climate change. When the scientists can give me a good ten day forecast maybe I'll start believing more in their 100 year predictions.

[@codyjones1098]

Speaking down too people is a horrible idea! Her examples are reckless and misinform the audience. I suspect being in gov. this is done on purpose. Example- if you cant grow cotton in west Texas you pick it up and grow cotton in Kansas! YA NO ! Cotton does not grow in Kansas for a reason, maybe basic soil biology. OH, at the end, she makes a sales pitch for Texas energy business, I get it! Its a sales pitch.

[@evagelosdrinis7656]

Fake Scientists she is a politician

[@ThekiBoran]

Politely ask this woman some honest questions on her Facebook page and be prepared to be blocked. Typical alarmist.

[@mattcrouch9348]

Weird. I've asked her many questions on Twitter and never got blocked. Perhaps you're a jackass?

[@caribbeanchild]

it's been warming for thousands of years... end of story

[@M1984FA]

Childish.

[@screwball1010]

Yet another video that doesn't present any hard data... :(