Support my work on Patreon: http://ow.ly/3ymWFu
PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVb4m_5QHhZElT47E1oODg
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter : http://twitter.com/davecullenCF
It's still not clear whether the climate change is brought on by human activity, or it's just a periodic thing. As a matter of fact, Earth usually warmer than we want to believe. We are living in a period of time called "Little Ice Age", and the average temperature of the earth is lower than normal. Well, normal for the earth, not us. The real inconvenient truth is, Gore is a major contributor of the inconvenient truth he's talking about.
"I'm not a climate change skeptic or denier"
5 minutes later:
"There actually hasn't been any significant temperature increases since the late nineties"
The only thing worse than a science denier is a science denier who lies through their teeth within the span of 5 minutes. Shame on you.
Holy shit the amount of misinformation and ignorance in these comments. We are polluting the absolute fuck out of the planet. Specifics aside, this is a bad thing. Bad things are happening because of it and the quality of life in the coming decades is only gonna lessen because of it.
Very good summary. Climate change/warming is occurring but claims to imminent disaster has damaged the cause of making the world do what is required to stop this warming rather than help solve the problem. A major cause of climate change is population growth, which is rarely raised. The other is nuclear power. Carbon an issue - quick solution is to build nuclear power plants and problem is cut by at least 33%. Again, silence. Facts and hypocrisy are the natural enemy of dogma and ideology.
I just want to point out a couple "Inconvenient Truths" myself:
First off, according to the USGS, naturally occurring greenhouse gasses released from volcanic eruptions both above ground, and from the ocean floor, still rival human production.
Second, if governments are truly concerned about global warming, then why have these same left-leaning groups responsible for the removal of sulfur from diesel fuel, when releasing sulfer into the atmosphere actually REFLECTS sunlight, which is why global temperatures go down, following large volcanic eruptions? The inconvenient truth is that the Left has pushed for changes that are counter-intuitive to slowing climate change, because they make a ton of money doing so.
-A Chevy Volt has a lifetime carbon footprint equivalent to 5 Chevy Silverado pickup trucks.
-Wind farms and solar farms cost so much, and produce so little electricity, that it takes 20 to 30 years just to recoup the cost. At the same time, a nuclear power plant could take up 1/200th the space, create 450x more power, for a fraction of the cost... Of course, Leftist politicians are the biggest stockholders of wind and solar power corporations, so....
Let's also keep in mind that no one scientific group can agree with another on the man-made effects of global warming. NASA has gone back and forth between solar cycles and man-made theories. The NOAA was caught taking seawater temperatures in large ship wakes (to intentionally get higher temperatures), the USGS says we're in a geological cycle, which they can read in the rocks, etc...
Lastly, Al Gore is the son of a coal magnate. His family made billions in the coal industry. He, himself, has multiple mansions and private jets. His own carbon output rivals entire communities, yet he, like his Leftist pals, likes to preach to us about how WE are the problem. Hypocrisy is fun that way.
Did I also fail to mention that Al Gore stands to make billions more from selling "carbon tax credits"? Yeah. He invented the internet AND a tax on AIR! How about that?
I disagree with you on this one, Dave. Of course, the climate changes - that goes without saying. It always has. And yes, man is probably having an effect on climate, however, I believe that effect is minimal. In fact, a little warming may actually be beneficial, not that the mainstream media will *ever* concede this point. So what is the effect of all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere? A greening planet and record crop production, for starters ... both of these things, incidentally, are precisely the opposite of what was predicted. See the links provided below. Also worth noting is that air and water quality in every Australian state is cleaner than it's been in decades, as it is in every other major Western city around the world.
Greening earth link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382
Record global food production link here: https://youtu.be/bO7mCeUL_Eg
And here: https://principia-scientific.org/2017-is-record-year-for-global-food-production/
Polar bear population rise is a lie. They are not thriving. They are losing their habitat and often dying of hunger, swimming for hundreds of miles to find hunting grounds - and simply failing due to climate change. Old data, that was used to place this myth of thriving polar bears is bogus. Fact is - global polar bear population (GPBP) is hard to track even now. This myth is based on comparing current guesstimate of GPBP with decades-old guess of GPBP. Do more research please.
Mankind pollutes. There is no dispute that this has an impact on not just our climate, but also our ecology. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate precisely ho much effect humanity has on climate change versus natural sources, which invariably has much greater impact.
Ice age , little ice age, medieval warm period the tip of the iceberg we should be more worried about a cataclysmic coalition . You say 1 or 2 degrees warming is bad lol its great and we need more and more co2 so keep keeping on folks.
In the current age, more people die from the cold than from heat. Saying that we're affecting the climate negatively with a raised temperature (a world temperature average that hasn't moved in 15 years, btw) is incorrect. If the world were slightly warmer all year (and this is what would and is happening), then you would actually see LESS human death and more plant growth. Those are positives. We are far, FAR from being in the danger zone. The hysteria comes from the models (unproven, and as of today WAY off course from predictions) that show an exponential growth in temperature. This is not going to happen. As someone else said, the scientific theory is using empirical data to hypothesize. Empirical data thus far shows that temperature increase is so miniscule as to be non-existent over the last 15 years, and in a wider time-scale, EXTREMELY gradual, nowhere near the exponential growth being warned about. What Climate Change Hysterics use are the models of the future to push their doom and gloom, which is the opposite of empirical data.
Also, even if they're right, their solutions do nothing to change the outcome, but impede current living standards and would cripple the economy and technological advancement, and tech advancement has been the number one contributor to less pollution by about a million times (that's an exaggeration, obviously). Even on their own terms, what they want is worse.
Actually, we're doing very little to contribute to Climate Change. It's part of the natural cycle of Earth and it's not warming...it's cooling we need to prepare for. More and more scientists back this up and so do the numbers.
well, i can fix global warming. ppl give off co2 so we just kill off anyone one ANY form of taxpayer goodies. if you cant feed, then it should die. this goes for countries as well. gods chosen cucks need my "murican taxmoney cut them off and let their imaginary friend save them. retards in afreeka cant support themselves? tough shit, hell has plenty of room. shaneequa cant feed it's 9 kids by 9 diff sperm donors? then the afterlife will see it through. crack/methheads need rehab? 12 gauge slug to the back of the head works just fine. when thinking of the leeches that infest the planet, let's look to the words of Captain James T. Kirk as Spock tell him of the Klingon Empire forthcoming demise, "LET THEM DIE". less leeches, less co2, less global warming.
What do you mean by "not at all for the better"? There are any number of pros and cons to a warmer Earth, you just only ever hear about the cons. To imply that "climate change" is only for the worse is betraying a bit of a bias here.
Also, the claim that X tons of carbon dioxide "has got to come back and bite us in the ass at some point." sounds just like the type of exaggerated assertions made by Gore in his movie, just with less-exaggerated language. Neither claims are scientific.
I hate what Gore did because it gives less credibility to the issue of climate change in the same way calling everyone a misogynist, rape apologist, or racist gives less credibility to genuine situations of this. That being said, nice job presenting the most biased graph you could find from a climate denial website. The data doesn't go back far enough nor include the most recent years to give the most accurate view; just check out figure 5. here: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/ "We're expected to believe that short term weather anomalies are representative of long term climate change"; "facepalm* No dude, that's how the hard right has always operated, and you're doing the same thing by presenting their doctored short term graph.
6:03 The ANTARCTIC Ice is not retreating so much anymore as per the article title, yet you say "the polar ice caps" rather than just the "south pole", as though arctic ice isn't disappearing. Over all, "the polar ice" is melting: https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
6:15 Again, if people look at the article title rather than just what you are saying, the scientists are stating that the "sun" seems to be cooling, which of course says nothing about our atmosphere. There is a debate as to how the cooling may offset the warming trend, and here's a more recent article on the subject: https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
The judge rule means practically nothing. He is not a scientist, he has not his own opinion based on research. Therefore he rellies upon the case presented by the experts of both parties and practically choses to be convienced by one of them. Now lets add to that the possibility of a judge playing along a political line himself for many different reasons.
The reason the left tends towards fear/exaggeration(or, an airhorn in your ear where a tap on the shoulder would be appropriate) is the same reason they say "anthropogenic" instead of "man made", or deoxyribonucleic acid instead of just DNA. Utilize instead of use. That F**CKING annoying word "proactive". They have an intense need to feel "smarter than"/"better than" you. This is why they speak so condescendingly when "informing" the masses, especially PC videos where predominantly white straight males need to learn to act more whatevery. That's why this movie is such a joke. Gore is a stooge and a complete elitist self-important hypocrite. Man bear pig.
Please compare the amount of carbon the movie says is dumped into the atmosphere by human activity every year to minor volcanic activity of 1 active volcanic area, say the constant minor activity of just Mauna Loa on the Hawaii, the largest Island of the Hawaiian chain. Look up the average yearly injection of particulate matter into the atmosphere by known natural process. The amount of carbon particulate matter they are assigning to human activity is less than the particulate matter accruing to the Earth by falling from space. Yet, we are supposed to beggar ourselves with schemes that will have no detectable effect.
I don't know what is driving this movement, especially the histrionics and hysteria. However I assess that it is are incorrect and does not produce or report reliable data or conclusions at the least.
Only a full blown idiot will believe al gore.. Every sentence out of his mouth since childhood has been proven wrong or debunked. Its not his intellect that got him where he is but his ability to ponzi his way into fools pockets.
The people who are harping on about global warming are the same people who go on holidays to the Far East by jet but they hammer in about how energy taxes should be increased to limit the "carbon footprint". These taxes affect mostly poor people who often never set foot on an airplane in their lives and hardly ever travel further than their own town. Gore is a good case in point, he has a private jet and a huge mansion. Yet he is a savior and Joe Blow who has a small car to travel 10 miles per day to his work is the villain.
Politicians want bad things to happen now so they can hold out the begging bowls. They don't want to hear the planet could be 2-3 degrees warmer in 100 years time. Scientific studies should be banned from being used as campaign talking points.
To fix a problem, you must target a problem and then track the fixing of that problem. Citizen health, clean water, and pollution damage can be improved within just a few years. If you want to create fear, create it around a fixable problem.
Dave, perhaps the reason that you believe that our impact on warming is "negative" is because you have bought into the unproven argument that "warmer" is somehow "bad." The truth is, the geological record clearly demonstrates that life LIKES warmer. Look at all of the past explosions in species diversity, and you will find they took place during warmer epochs. That mankind insists on building in coastal areas that will become more susceptible to flooding means that mankind will suffer disparately over other life. However, sea levels are never static, and if the world weren't warming and making the seas rise, it would be cooling and causing sea levels to drop - which would be horrific for the shallow and tidal pool areas that are thriving at the current levels. As the old adage goes - life is FULL of little tradeoffs.
While polar bears numbers are increasing, they are in fact moving more inland due to climate change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/18/polar-bears-are-spending-more-time-on-land-where-they-can-encounter-humans/
You can't have it both ways. Suggesting that while the predications are off man is still causing problems is absurd. It used to be that humans were to blame but now cow farts are a major factor. If we were the primary problem, don't you think all resources would be brought in to solve things?
You acknowledge that career politicians only deal with the situation by taxation, fees, etc. They don't care about anything but power and they work tirelessly to appear to be doing something. There have been several mass extinction events and humans were not even alive yet. Are we really to believe that in under 200 years we have begun destroying a planet that is billions of years old?
Sorry Dave you lost a bit of street cred with me I am afraid, calling people who are skeptical of climate change deniers and with all the connotations that implies.
Climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate. When presented appropriately, climate model outputs clearly show that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between human-induced and naturally occurring global warming, and since the early 1980s, surface temperature data clearly and strongly suggest that the surfaces of the global oceans warmed in response to naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes, not as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.
How is it possible that “Holocaustic (seeing though we are using the term denier) run-away global warming” can be forced by 400PPM CO2 atmospheric concentrations, when this is amongst the lowest CO2 levels in the planets history? When the CO2 levels were at 8,000 PPM or higher, why did the planet not “burn up” then?
Normally I like what you say.
*_Wrong!_* Eminent scientists on the skeptic side show that humans are *_not_* warming up the planet. In fact, if you look at the climate record, you'll see that there is zero correlation between CO2 and global temperature on *_all_* time scales except that shown in Al Gore's film. And in Gore's film, the correlation he used actually had temperature causing CO2 increases; not the other way around (warm oceans don't hold as much CO2).
The term "climate change" itself has been turned into a propaganda tool. Climate has changed for nearly 4.5 *_Billion_* years. Skepticism isn't about whether climate has changed or not, but about the cause and whether or not it's a danger.
We live in an Ice Age, and history has shown time and again that cooling results in famines and societal collapses, while warming results in greater prosperity. This cannot be guaranteed for every location. Climate is more chaotic than that. But on average, you get more prosperity with more warmth. Because we're living in an Ice Age, we're close to the bottom of Earth's natural range of variation. Global warming is the solution; not the problem.
6:06 This effect is actually CAUSED by global warming, what happens is that the ice at the south pole is melting but because of the lack of any currents to pull it away it remains around floating on the surface of the salt water since salt water is denser than cold water. Then when the next feezing cycle comes around since fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water, it freezes easier. Causing a large thin plate of ice to grow. This is why people who don't know a fucking lick of science shouldn't be so cocky about things they clearly don't understand. Once again I repeat myself *Get Your Head Out Of Your Ass And Accept That Just because The Progressives Do Something Doesnt Mean its Wrong*
5:24 legit false information, this is fucking absurd, get your head out of your ass and accept that just because progressives do something doesn't mean its guaranteed to be incorrect. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The big problem with all models is that it ignores water. Numbers from Nasa point out that with out water we contribute about 3% of green house gases total. If you consider water that's around 1%. The only thing this number doesn't take into consideration is increased methane from large cattle farms and plant increases from farming. The number one producer of Green House gasses is plant decay, and second it Volcanic activity.The bigger problem is instead of finding out why there was data contradicting their findings. They purposely try to suppress it instead of finding the reason for it.
5.25...dave...thats not how you honestly draw a trendline through data. veritasium (OH I KNOW RIGHT! PAYDOFF LEFTWING CARREER POLITICIAN WHO OBVIOUSLY RECIEVES TONS OF MONEY FROM MERKEL AND TEH ILLUMINTATIE WOOOOOHH) Actually has a pretty objective and non-alarmist video regarding ACC (or AGW) and its misconceptions.
1. Try living in America.
2. Try dropping acid.
If you do these two things I will find it hard to believe that you will be so concerned with preserving the culture of the past so much as to bring it up constantly, and to the point that you seem that you might sacrifice good decision-making if it means you can have a whiter circle for a few more years.
Belief in catastrophic anthropocentric climate change (CACC) doesn't stop your run-of-the-mill millennials from buying 2 to 3 helpings of Starbucks every day, or going out to eat instead of packing a lunch, or, if packing a lunch, packing a frozen pre-packaged meal rather than a home-prepared meal in a reusable container. Nor does it stop them from pumping out even more CO2 driving to the beach or the mountains every weekend, or flying to destination spots on vacation.
Deep down, they actually don't believe in CACC either, as demonstrated by their behavior.
Fundamentally, this is a philosophical question. Humankind is either a net good or a net evil. Those who believe humankind is a net evil will imbibe these catastrophic predictions as gospel. Those who believe humankind is a net positive will imbibe either arguments that conclude the release of CO2 impact is a negative, but only slightly (as you have) or imbibe the arguments that the release of CO2 is a net benefit.
This topic is too big and too complex for any one person to proclaim themselves to have a "handle on the truth", it simply comes down to your view of humanity.
My argument is that the Earth has only so much time before the sun eventually destroys all life on its surface (assuming another natural extinction event doesn't do the job sooner). If the products of the planet's collective evolution are to enjoy any life beyond that, it will be by human intervention alone. We are only decades from being able to start cataloging and storing the genetic code for all life on earth, en masse, and when we are able to, we will have the capability to recreate that life anywhere we colonize. Life forms which evolved on earth may eventually continue their evolution on worlds galaxies away, all thanks to us.
So the entire CACC argument notwithstanding, humans, any way you cut it, are a huge net positive.
You're correct... except the data has been *MASSIVELY* faked. Only a moron would claim that actions do not have consequences, but that's not the question or significance of what these globalist cretins are trying to do via the lie called "global warming" or "climate change". It is all about the planned total enslavement of mankind by the usual suspects (the "globalists"). Also, sorry, but CO2 is natural. In fact, *CO2 is plant food.* In fact, some greenhouse operators have been spewing CO2 into their greenhouses to raise the CO2 level because... the plants inside grow much faster and the veggies are more nutritious! Furthermore, if the average temperature on earth goes a few degrees higher, a great deal more land is available for farming... which helps solve poverty and food price problems. So the fact is, a moderate global warming is beneficial. Oh, and also, rising temperature causes increased CO2, not the other way around. Duh!
Oh, and do recall the MWP (medieval warm period), which is recent enough (900~1000 years or so) that books still exist that were written in that period and describe much warmer conditions much further north than today... and describe farming at latitudes that do not support farming today. Sorry, that was not caused by CO2 emissions from factories... or from cow farts either for that matter. Here is how you can tell that the entire AGW propaganda is purposeful fraud. Virtually all attention that used to exist on actual pollution (which CO2 is not) has now been abandoned in favor of griping about AGW... which means the corporate predators-that-be can more easily spew poison into air and water. Maybe that's the secondary reason for the AGW lie... to misdirect concern about pollution into something else. Of course the primary reason for the AGW lie is... to justify carbon taxes to pay for global government.
Since humans are dumber than rocks, and are a totally failed species, the only viable solution for the 0.00001% of humans who aren't stupid is... to get the hell outta dodge where the predators-that-be cannot control them. Where is that? Off planet earth.
to be a voice of reason, though I do believe pollution can have an impact on the environment, I do believe natural occurances do far more damage. I will be frank, what makes more sense. the worlds polar ice caps will melt by 2014 or that green politicians got rich off of pushing green industry standards? you tell me. there was a volcano that erupted in the Pacific last summer in wich it emitted more co2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind has in his existence on this planet. let that sink in. But lets just entertain the idea that global warming errrrrr wait...climate change (have to make people scared of all natural weather patterns now, not just warming) is actually real. ok...so the west has introduced pollution standards that will reduce pollution...but what about other major industrial nations such as China. everything is made in China these days. do they follow strict pollution standards????!!!! india??!!? Russia? ??!!! again, there are many holes in climate change that people are catching onto. I personally believe it is a false science to scare idiots into believing we needed to change how we do everything in order to stop the world from ending, most fell for it at first. there are long range weather cycles that occur.warming and cooling cycles. el nino vs. el nina Pacific warm water cycles that effect weather patterns in the US. as I mentioned, volcanic activity. Another factor in global weather patterns, solar storms. another natural factor, magnetic field weakening. our magnetic field has been changing and or weaking. some predict a polar reversal at some point soon. I would be far more concerned short term about the natural factors that I have mention rather mankind polluting the planet to death. Just some of my thoughts on the subject.
Thanks for coming out and starting this review by declaring yourself as a supporter of the premise. Many people do not agree with the premise as "negative". Quite simply, this is because we disagree on the notion of "compared to what?" since our preferences differ greatly. On top of that, you must consider that almost everything is done by humans with a bias. You must also consider the quantum finish that measuring a thing alters it. Concurrently, it is true that humans "have an effect" because it is impossible to be part of a system and NOT exert some effect. The only way to exclude our effect is to remove us from the system. Finally, climate change is inherently nonscientific because it is not falsifiable. What evidence would people accept as disproving it? Everything is claimed to be evidence supporting the notion. I appreciate your comments on the monetary incentive and ulterior motive of political leaders. Some evidence suggests that this is a farce, a snake oil as you say, which happens to fit the facts at least as much as Gore's allegations.
There is a theory that explains ozone holes in much more compelling fashion than CO2 and Freon pollution. Check out the natural Earth crust hydrogen release theory, and how strikingly the activity in such release areas MATCHES the factual ozone holes map. On top of that, CO2 enriched atmosphere is ideal condition for thriving biosphere. It is the air rich of CO2 allowed for thriving existence of dinosaurs and such. We are living in the era of highly oxidizing i.e. KILLING atmosphere.
The problem with the science of climate change, is that it's NOT SCIENCE.
The hypothesis has NEVER been established according to scientific methodology-- EVER.
No statistical error-margins, no null hypothesis, no double-blind experiments, no independent duplication, no peer-review-- NOTHING! ZERO! ZIP! NADA!
You know what that makes it? JUNK SCIENCE!
But the real problem is the scientists who REFUTED this junk-science, rather than simply OBSERVING that it didn't meet scientific requirements; and by doing so, they ENABLED the junk-science, by VALIDATING it as a theory to be refuted, rather than a HYPOTHESIS to be discarded for not meeting criteria.
And you CAN'T refute an invalid hypothesis; it's just "proving a negative."
That's why science is based on PRAGMATISM: i.e. the hypothesis must be ESTABLISHED, not simply given credence and REFUTED.
So it's like a criminal defendant who is brought into court without establishing probable cause: i.e. the entire case is THROWN OUT.
As should Climate Change be-- and for the same reason: i.e. burden of proof.
I don’t think the connection between “climate change” and “bad” is a scientific judgement. I think it’s a moral judgement. And I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s bad for the earth to get warmer. It’s been warmer than now in the past. And it puttered along just fine. People and animals will continue to adapt and the earth will take care of itself.
Unless bigger trees is a bad thing for whatever ungodly reason. We may lose some of California and Florida, but people will be slowly moving off of their coastal properties as they notice the sea level slowly rising. It’s not going to be immediate, and it’s not at all “bad” for the earth to be getting warmer, if it even is.
Mostly strongly agree with your points. The core argument that Gore made was complete nonsence. As has been been going on for decades, this global warming movement has been racing ahead, demanding huge changes in world politics, economics, culture, etc. ..most all of which demands they be given more global control and wealth. From Gores open declaration the the global order and laws be swept aside since it's the only way we can survive the coming climate apocalypse!! To the UNs demands for massive economic transfers ( though curiously never actually pushing any binding agreements to prevent emmisions. ). They are snake oil salesmen.
Where I disagree, largely since I have more scientific background, and focused more time investigating the data. For a while I could even access the raw data collected by NOAA, NASA, and other groups related to climate data, as well as anthropological records.
We're not abnormally warm, or warming, the last 200 years have been about the second coldest period in the last 8 maybe 10 thousand years. The coldest however being the little ice age were recovering from. A thousand years ago global climate was shockingly warmer. With thriving vineyards as far north as Scandinavia and norther Scotland crowding out some French wines in France! Vikings finding "Greenland" completely covered ( as far as they could see ) in forrests and grasslands. We have about half recovered from the deaths of little ice age which extended to end of the 1700's. (Truly sucked to be a colonial solder wintering in Valley Forge Pensilvania, which back then had winters as bad as current winters in Maine.
The rate of warming from start of the 1800's to 1930's was about as fast as the 200+ years of cooling at the start of the little ice age. But since the '30's. ( before you "process" the data to enhance the effect you want as a climate change advocate ) We've had no real warming. No real changes from 30's -'50's, cooling '50's-'70's, warming to '90's, nothing since then. Which is concerning to climate folks fearing this warming is a near break in the longer term cooling, and really looks weird to human caused global warming promoters given 90% of all fossil fuel consumption and artificial CO2 emmisions has been since WW-II due to global industrialization and population explosion. I.e. The warming to small and stopped BEFORE we emitted emtted the greenhouse gases.
The vast bulk of all scientists in the field ( about 3/4ths ) think humans have no detectable impact on global climate. The bulk of the rest think we have no major or concerning impact.
I.e. Global warming is this eras big lie, like the Nazi big lie of the last century. Which as the Nazis found, even people who realize they are being lied to, can't beleave there's literally no truth at all to what they are saying.
Certainly air and other pollution is a bad problem, and we are taking steps to control that. But CO2 isn't a problem. It's not a pollutant, it's plant food. So we're seeing more plant growth.
It's like we're a bunch of plants arguing about the horrific oxygen production poisoning the air. ( Yes I realize the rise of Oxgen due to early plants whipped out the bulk of all life on Earth. But it was a long time ago, we should move on.)
Ha! So the ad on this video was from a energy company basically promoting reducing carbon emissions with alternate energy sources. I've noticed this a lot recently. You watch a video criticising Islam and it'll start with an pro islam/diversity add. You watch a video criticising the #me too moment and you'll be hit with a "raising awareness add" for domestic violence. Don't get me wrong I think the last one is a serious issue but the targeted add placement is obviously propaganda! I know It's a struggle to get add revenue at the moment and I sure as shit not suggesting you should turn them off or any thing but I do think it would be awesome if you make a video addressing this.
Climate change is real, its human caused, and its happening on a GLOBAL scale. That's the piece of information that people can't seem to grasp. Yes, there have been climate changes in the past, but there were three important factors that differentiate them from what we are currently experiencing. The first is the SCALE of the change. In every case in the past, rapid environmental changes have been regional. That is they take place is a defined area of the globe, not the entire Earth... with a few notable expectations.
The second important thing, is the TIME frame. Global temperate change on this scale take 10s of thousands of years, or MILLIONS of years to achieve what has happened in modern times in only two hundred years. The onset of industrialization.
Third, climate change IS a reasonably predictable thing. The MAJOR factor in the Earth climate is the source that drives it all, the Sun, and the Earth's proximity to it. There are several cycles that changes the Earth's orbital relationship with the sun, and they occur in approximently 100,000 year cycles. The orbit itself is not circular its oval. The Earth's orbit is not centered around the sun, it moves inwards and outwards. The orbit also does not remain on the same plane... its declination to the Sun changes as well. Finally, the Earth's axis wobbles in a 20,000 year cycle. All of these cycles are known, calculated and predictable. Tabling that data, with historical climate gathered through geological research gives a very defined pattern on ice ages, and global temperature patterns going back hundreds of millions of years. CURRENTLY, we are suppose to have another 50,000 years of moderate climate, NOT warming.
So, that the Earth's climate is changing is not a debate. The data gathered indicates it is cause by Human activity. We currently have the technology to transition out of fossil fuels, and reduce rapid deforestation, I fail to see WHY this is controversial. It needs to be addressed YESTERDAY.
Climate change yes. Man made climate change and Global warming no. Is mankind making a difference at all toward climate change, possibly. Is the globe warming at all. Slightly but will then dramatically cool and mankind could POSSIBLY be contributing.
So many climate change and global warming predictions (as you stated) have been proven false. Many scientists that have been attributed to agreeing with Manmade climate change and in fact were not. They merely had studies taken out of context or flat out misused as you know. There are scientists who do in fact NOT agree on manmade C.C.
As of now enough has been debunked/proved false that it needs to be dismissed back to a theory, which in turn needs to be studied. But SO MANY groups and scientists are being funded only IF they find evidence supporting M.M.C.C. so. It skews the data to the point of unreliability.
In the Dennis Quaid movie, the Day After Tomorrow, when the climate was pushed to far, it rebounds. Of course, the time scale was shortened from 100 years to a single weekend to squeeze the effects into a two-hour feature film and to enhance the drama of the story. What I'm getting at is, maybe the rebound cooling after warming the planet has started.
And where are your sources. You are claiming that ice sheets are thicker, and that polar bear populations are thriving, as well as other claims. Where did you get your information from. Unless you provide some sources then I can't take a thing you said in this video with even a grain of salt. Your views don't seem to know much about this topic either, since absolutely none of them cared to ask for sources, of even dispute some of your unfounded claims.
And just because a lot of their time predictions were false, that doesn't mean that they just made those predictions for political reasons. They're scientists, not gods. They can't always be accurate with how quickly some of these changes will happen. There are millions of factors contributing to climate change. It would be impossible to make accurate predictions.
"It is even suggested that another Ice Age is upon is us" The article in that screenshot is about the sun cooling, not about climate change. The article literally says "the earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop..." Also, you should probably take some classes on the Environment, because you are clearly misinterpreting a lot of graphs and data.
In the USA, it is apparently necessary to EITHER believe that Al Gore is a brilliant scientist who understands this issue perfectly and wants the best for us OR that Rush Limbaugh is a brilliant scientist who understands this issue perfectly and wants the best for us. Other notions -- say, that maybe neither of them have any real scientific credentials or that both their public positions can be explained by their personal interests -- need not apply.
Your choices are illogical. No one talks about Gore being brilliant. Except possibly Leonardo DiCaprio, but he's an idiot. And no one is saying Limbaugh is a brilliant scientist. The most rational climatologists will say quite clearly they cannot predict climate any degree of accuracy because there are no models they can use.
Liberals, the bloody genius scientists they claim to be, are making the most dire predictions because it is in their nature to panic.
Yea, because - sarcasm: - scientists didn't prove human activity was substantial enough to cause the destruction of the Ozone layer, and that by implenting a global ban on CFC emissions were we able to prevent further destruction and IN FACT allow it to (thankfully) heal itself! - end of sarcasm... People are under the illusion that human activity cannot have any impact on our delicate goldilocks ecosystem when we caused the hole in the Ozone layer. FFS, it's DUMB! The Earth is 3.7 BILLION years old, HUMANS have been around for just a fraction of that at 100,000 years. We started burning oil just 150 YEARS ago. Population has risen, and continues to rise, at an exponential rate, from just ONE BILLION to SEVEN BILLION within ONE THOUSAND YEARS. IT'S ONLY BY THE GRACE OF A NON-EXISSTING GOD THAT ISN'T UP THERE NOT PROTECTING HIS SPECIAL WORLD AND FAVOURITE CREATIONS - yes JUST HUMANS, FUCK THE "ANIMALS", THAT THERE ARE LESS "HAVES" AND MORE "HAVE-NOTS". Because, regardless, if you think suddenly burning all the locked up carbon, created and stored over 10s OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, will not threaten the very existence of life on this unique planet, then you are a fucking idiot with it head up its arse. OH, and in case you think so, I am NO LEFTY, AND I THINK THE UK GREEN PARTY ARE A BUNCH OF SJW MORON SOCIALIST MUPPETS! CAPITALISM IS THE GAME WE DESRVE AND NEED, JUST PLAY NICE, HAVE MORALS AND DON'T KILL THE EARTH WITH IGNORANT STUPIDITY.
People not believing that there will be blow back from reasoning millions of tons of CO2 and Methane into the Atmosphere confuse the crap out of me.
Our ancestors said the same thing about Freon, Pesticides, Nitrogen oxides, Lead, asbestos and mercury and each and every single one of those things came back to bite us in the ass after a few decades in the form of toxic food, holes in the Ozone layer, elevated rates of cancers and super bugs, acid rain, elevated rates of brain damage and contaminated waters.
You claim to not be a climate change denier, but then go on a 6 minute long explanation of climate denying 'facts' that are always used out of context to try to argue against climate change. Not to mention completely ignoring the apparent focus of this video, which was supposed to be a review of an old, misleading documentary made more for profit then anything else,of which even strong proponents for climate change never cite as useful.
Your bias is showing, and it's obvious.
You're not a climate change skeptic?
What a shame, I'm a skeptic on everything.
You should read the moral case for fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are what make our civilization possible.
"Green" energy is shit, which is why the progressives are in favor of it.
They want to destroy human success.
"The CO2 we pump in the atmosphere is going to come back and bite us"
Why would a natural product of humans living necessarily be bad?
It looks like this statement is a remainder of indoctrination, not your own conclusion.
Even with deforestation earth has gotten greener over the last 30 years.
Because of CO2!
Are plants bad?
Dave. Look at how much we contribute AS A PERCENTAGE of co2 globally, per annum.
Its FUCK ALL. The oceans pump most of it. And one volcano smashes our numbers in one paroxysm of fury.
Co2 is beneficial.
Correlation is NOT necessarily causation.
Predictions by climate scientists over the las couple of decades have been proven wrong? No...quite the opposite. Since the IPCC was formed, they've been putting out predictions based upon what they knew at the time, and the current warming trend has far outpaced the predictions.