Thank you so much for your great videos and inspiring Simon Clark to do his own spin on it, it really made this video a lot more interesting and attention keeping.

I hope more people follow this style of educational videos .

I was thinking about you during this whole video

I knew I recognised the video style!

A shame about that scientist that ended up as a Foote note...

How is tobaco farming increasing the carbon footprint? And yes, the oceans are rising.

@@old-pete I'm also confused by "son of a N. Carolina TOBACCO FARMER, worked the fields himself helping to increase carbon footprint." The two best thoughts I can come up with: 1. Burning a cigarette increases CO2, however minor. 2. Burning fuel in tractors, though this would be the same for any modern farming. *@jeffreyjacobs390:* Are one of these what you mean? If not, what are you actually talking about?

@jeffreyjacobs390 Al Gore was also vice president to BILL CLINTON. Aka EPSTEIN #1 fan! He 100000% was on pedophile island with his BFF Bill Clinton. It's so obvious and gross. How is this not being talked about?? Trump looks in the wrong direction and it makes front page news for 2 years, AL GORE AND BILL CLINTON WERE REGULARS AT AN ISLAND BUILT FOR PEDOPHILES AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THIS????

You have confirmed, through your own comment, that you have no clue what you are talking about. You polluted this comment space with an inspired piece of crap. I hope you are proud, sir.

Apparently Gore did make some technical errors but his overall direction has been validated. I don't think he made the claims you suggest though. The information you present almost certainly came from others who exaggerated Gore's work. And why such an attack? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Conspiracy NOW! Conspiracy FOREVER! Fick dich if you think any of my measurements are fucking influenced by "funding"

“Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.”

​@kapsi ...the only word that is wrong is 'chatostropic'...(catastrophic)...

There is not a 'large body of scientists' at all who disagree with the standard models. These 'scientists' who disagree mostly are not scientists in climatology but claim to have expertise. This is a very small group the proportion of which is comparable to the proportion of disturbed personalities in larger society.

But that goes against my narrative!

Slight adjust... 790k nitrogen, 200k oxygen.

and? what is your point? if nitrogen were a greenhouse gass the earth would be a blob of molten lava. "ooh look the gass that does nothing is in vast quantities, that means the gass that does do things is magically incapable of warming the planet"

@@lucasleepwalker7543 I think the point is, though I could be wrong, that in all our historical records CO2 has never led global warming.

@@Vigula it is one of the main reasons reason behind our temperature. base temp for earth without greenhouse gasses is -16. if any point on earth is warmer than that, you have greenhouse gasses warming stuff up. co2 is the main one that does the bulk of our warming, without it we are an ice ball, with too much of it we turn into a dessert. the problem we have at the moment is its really easy to influence co2 amounts, as it only takes a small amount of co2 to do a lot of warming, so humans have managed to pump out co2 levels that within 40 years will kill most life on earth. this has happened twice before, co2 levels climbed to 5 or 6 degrees higher than life was adapted for, so almost everything died the difference with our situation, is where those two extinction events took tens of thousands of years, we have done it in 200 years at the moment we are an ice age planet, and humans are an ice age species, we die at about 40 degrees if its humid enough. and we are rapidly bringing earth out of the ice age into a hot dry world that next to none of our life is adapted for, and the few species that can survive the heat, are the ones that are about to-and have gone extinct due to human activity.

@@michaelkazz yup

And what is your point?

Excessively hot weather, along with other extreme weather events has killed people. In a 2021 study published in the Lancet Planetary Health journal (Vol 5, Issue 7 July 2021) that looked at the numbers for 2000 to 2019, found that globally 5,083,173 deaths had occurred globally that are attributed to global warming/climate change. That number included 170,000 in the US alone. There are many more scientific studies detailing the negative impact that global warming/climate change is having on human health and mortality, the environment, and even the economy. So while you may be attracted to purveyors of misinformation and outright lies, the scientific community continues to do real research and their findings are continuing to verify the original scientific consensus that global warming/climate change is a real threat and is getting worse each year.

For some good debunks and explanations of climate change I can also recommend potholer54. He always gives link to any sources

Feed the Al Gorethm

A lot of this video is talked about in more detail in Simon's book Firmament. If you want to recommend a book to physics laymen (or climate change deniers) who actually want to learn something new, this is the one to go!

@@kevinpils4716 Added to my wishlist 👍

Also it says "inspired by Bobby Broccoli" whose documentaries I can also warmly recommend.

Hey now!! That acid rain/killer bees/amazon ants. Will be here any day, Amy day...then you'll see. By the year 2000, the oceans will rise, the higher latitudes will start to freeze over, and everything in between will be nuclear acid raining killer flying amazon ants...and that...would be mankind's fault.

@@roostertn you forgot the massive crop failure and the ice age that was to occur in North America only around the year 1980.

Maybe you have not heard the first anthropogenic climate change scare, from the cold summer of 1816, where the Year Without a Summer was blamed on Ben Franklin's lightning rod. Ironically, Franklin himself was one of the first people to speculate that volcanoes could cause drastic cooling.

@@roostertn ...and one of the most earnest agenda-pushing Presidents of the last few decades proves his adherence to the faith by buying a $15million beachfront property...

@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 I believe, without verifying it however, that Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was a product of that same period. She was on holiday with her husband and another author and the poor weather kept them inside most of the time, which they spent writing.

don't forget the mid evil warming period as well, which happened right before the little ice age. A period of time hotter than it is now, yet was also prosperous. I do believe C02 can be correlated to the warming of earth right now, but I also believe we could be missing other things contributing and don't have enough time to actually prove the theory that strictly gas emissions are to blame. Only time will tell I guess, it's also hard to not question science after seeing how money/corruption works in the field. The past 20 is years of Alzheimers research/data has found to have been fabricated.

And we are going to get cold again,.......soon

Yes, we are entering a colder period. What global warming?

That's right, you can't have global warming on a flat Earth.

@@daizyflower272 Some colder, some warmer. Global warming refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, climate change refers to more than just temperature ie precipitation, wind, sea levels etc. Some dummies think global warming as a phrase was replaced by climate change because of some places getting cooler- really can't explain the ignorance and poor education of those people.

Can you explain this "ocean acidification" to me ? If you're gonna start with "warmer oceans contain more CO2",than don't waste my time.

PH of 7.8 instead of 7.9 is not acidic at all. We are talking about salted ocean here!!! Stop using acidic when it’s a bit less basic. Peter Reid said that within 24 hours the ocean ph can dropped by 0.4 night/ day and everything is find. The best coral since loooong time is flourishing.

@@ms-jl6dl lol what a way to start a conversation with someone

I can't believe people still buy this nonsense.

Actually, that is factored in when they make carbon budget calculations.

relax, they go back at least a million years.

@@mrunning10 most of the data used to show a warming climate starts in around 1750 the end of the little ice age. Can't think why 😂👍

Exactly Steven, Great comment

Good post but I believe we are currently still in the 5th ice age, as there is still ice. Please correct me if you have a source saying this is mistaken.

Thanks for writing that. Simon is a full dogmatic person, that despite of being a so called scientist he is not presenting the things right. I don't know why he does that because I like his other videos. We don't know how global climate really work's and we need more investigation, but I don't buy the narrative of Global warming. We need more people like you.

Thank you, Steve. Send this comment to youtube to replace their woke "context" that no one asked for.

Well said. Open discourse without demonising a finding or opinion that doesn't align with your own is what's lacking in our society. When it's said that "the science is settled", you quite often find power and money collaborating to get a desired outcome in their own interests.

water vapor is also not limited to 400ppm but more like 10-50000ppm

Yes water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. CO2 is a trope that doesn't really figure in the equation.

Oh but it is certainly discussed. Aircraft contrails is one of the more publicly known parts I would say. I also think that most of the water that we add to the atmosphere down at lower altitudes doesn’t stay for long at all and so the effect is quite limited compared to the co2 we are emitting. Still if we are talking overall temperature of the earth then I think water vapour is a much bigger contributor than CO2 but for the part that we humans have emitted and the part that has actually changed over the last century or so co2 is playing a bigger part

@brucepeterson3246 Exactly! No one knows the feedback effect of water vapor. Also the self- proclaimed Oxford "expert" failed to mention the studies demonstrating that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate at which the additional delta of CO2 contributes to additional warming gets smaller.

​@@thurbine2411I don't think anyone knows or can predict with any accuracy the combined effect of water vapor and CO2 on long term climate.

Because you start off with assumptions and thus a question that is wrong to begin with. (there was no "ice age" during the Jurassic) (you work for an Oil lobby perhaps? they like to do this mis-leading shit) 1. There was and always is a "greenhouse" effect on this planet. 2. Jurassic did indeed have MORE carbon than today (reaching 10x, but not staying there) (the Earth takes a LONG time (millions of years) to react cyclically. 3. Jurassic period showed mostly continuous average global WARMER temperatures than todays'. 4. Jurassic period was at the end of Pangea breakup, (that's where the increase in carbon came from) where the surface area of the oceans was greater than today and their were no land masses at or near the poles, there was no ice at the poles and little if any "albedo" increase and although some evidence of ice is possible little formed to call it an "ice age" (sounds like you got this from a right-wing climate conspiracy deniers website?)

Do you know the difference between “there” and “their?”

@@TN-pw2nl He does but evidently you don't.

Climate cooling is mentioned in my high school year book, 1974

Are you going to believe the climate hysterians or your own eyes? Come on man FJB and FAG

It's almost like the "experts" don't know sh*t...

@@lisaac9477 facts don’t mean anything. The only thing we hear is the political agenda

@@jeffwalker1322 That's all there is today. No science. Just politics. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows when science becomes political, it stops being science.

All true, and all PROOF that The Oil Will End numbnuts.

"Production has trended upward in recent years, even as drought ravaged the southern sun belt and heavy spring rains overwhelmed midwestern fields. Farmers and experts attribute increased production to advances in agricultural techniques and a better understanding of how crops handle bad weather." Not due to fossil fuels. "In some ways, a warming world helps farmers. Warmer weather extended planting seasons by between 10 and 15 days in the Midwest. But the harmful conditions far outweigh any benefits, experts say."

Also please explain how poverty has decreased globally. "Wealth inequality drives poverty and precarity for people at the bottom, and exacerbates disparity. Wealth inequality is high and rising and more marked than income inequality."

BC old growth logging has increased year over year, and is unsustainable at it's current trend. No clue where you found growth rate data, but one could assume it's the added heat, and it's negligable considering how quickly we're cutting them down.

Also, U.S. life expectancy has declined to 76.4 years, the shortest it's been in nearly two decades. Dude not a single point you made is true, were you being sarcastic?

Next Episode another 12 years to save the world Greta get Deleting .

Watt is a fantasy figure in a falsified history from the victor. Humanity had electricity and a highly advanced society on a global scale. The victor had destroyed it all and the rest is "his story"

Watt made significant improvements however the steam engine had already been invented.

You followed no science. And when you follow the money, you'll find the millions that the fossil fuel industry is pumping into the denial and disinfo websites you've probably consumed.

Another climate disruption denier. Conformation bias much?

No you didn't. Tell us how you 'followed the science'. Sigh...And by following 'the money', you mean you projected your own driving mercenary motivation on to scientific endeavour. You know nothing.

@@Fomitestry to get a grant for research that goes against the man made climate narrative.

Why do you talk like a robot

You won't get any of that, naturally! That's the ACTUAL inconvenient truth, which this guy wouldn't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole.

Global Temperatures were warmer during The Medieval Warming Period….This is quite clear based on Irrefutable Proxy Evidence.

I'm a simpler man than you are, I look forward to an explanation of why the forecast say it's partly cloudy when it's been raining for almost sn hour already. I'd also like an explanation of why I should trust the predictions about climate when they clearly don't have the means to predict weather yet.

@@lenlooksback7981 That's what I keep telling everyone especially Al Boor's infamous "hockey stick" graph which "conveniently" left out the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than now MINUS massive urbanisation no coal or gas fired power stations no cars no millions of international flights .

He never will because that's the REAL inconvenient truth.This presentation is affirm the climate bed wetters , bed wetting .

LOL. Literally all of those issues are actually very well understood. We have pretty solid records of insolation over the decades (it's been DECREASING as the planet has been heating rapidly). The earth's orbit is very eccentric and varying, but that happens in well understood patterns that were characterized extensively in the mid 20th century by Milankovitch. It's the REASON we understand the ice age cycles. Long term climate change is understood via a variety of temperature proxies, and we also know what drove the changes. And volcanism's contribution also is well studied. For instance, all the volcanoes in the world release less than ONE PERCENT as much CO2 as humans do.

@@markw4206 Okay, thanks, although you didn’t explain tropical plants under the Antarctic Ice cap. Also if we are coming out of an ice age then temperature’s are definitely going to increase. I have yet to see what the perfect Co2 level we are shooting for, is 0 an ideal number, it’s definitely low enough. It’s interesting to know that greenhouse’s increase Co2 levels upwards of 1000ppm for a higher quality crop. What if we trigger a super ice age like the one that covered most of North America, yikes 😱 The biggest problem I see is when using computer models are very unreliable, especially when dealing with data that is manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion. Any time I see mass hysteria it throws up a red flag 🚩 as to the groups involved and what they’re real ultimate goals are. Like Bill Gates goal of reducing world population to 500 million, now that is a cause for extreme concern.

​@Tshasta4449 Keep burning carbon and we will destroy our climate, leading to a mass extinction. The only thing that will save the earth is our destruction. It's true what they say, ignorance and dumbfuckery are difficult to defeat. Some people have more bone than brain in their skulls. Pity.

Damn straight I need Part 2. Climate Town already covered a lot but I just want to have as many channels have their take as possible. Can always learn something new.

Stay in school.

@@papertowelthe6th105 two, multiple sources is always fascinating and great to have.

@@rimbusjift7575 schools don’t teach climate science as they should, same with a lot of subjects.

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Physical science is mandatory is most of the western world.

Eunice Foote’s “legacy” 😂

All her work was destroyed in a fire yet it was rediscovered much later during the WOKE decades. I wonder if she was of African decent as well? Perhaps we will discover her secret ethnicity during the next Democrat Presidency.

Ever been in a greenhouse in the nighttime, they are still lovely and warm but when the sun goes down here it's bloody cold , just a observation

0.04 percent, which is an increase of 50 percent since 170 years ago. A very fast rate geologically, and even on scales relevant to humans. There is a reason why global warming is not estimated in in degrees per decade; it is estimated in watts per square meter or total watts, which we know you have no clue why thus your nonsense about thermometers. If you or anyone else can show that the methods used to determine the increase in global mean temp can be dismissed, you'll be the next rock star in applied physics and rich to boot.

gotta give some love for the originator of this style too, Jon Bois' chart party series. It's such an exceptional way to tell a story.

​@@Altobrun Before there was Chart Party, there was his series "Pretty Good" in which this style became the consistent Jon Bois style Shoutout to Bobby for giving folks a tutorial for it.

Yeah, the style seems a bit unusual for Simon's channel, but it is a great homage to BobbyBroccoli.

Disney is poison.

With no CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean PH would be around 10 or 11 IIRC. Don't think we would care much since we would all be dead. The acid effect as well as the buffering in the ocean is vital for life, and not surprisingly in our blood too.

Nonsense... It would have been absorbed by photosynthesis and the calcium carbonate cycle...

It's amazing that sugar and fat are essential for my own survival and yet doctors tell me off for eating two buckets of ice cream a day

I hope your parents are proud of you

Your wrong of course. What killed him was the sudden stop of his inertia.

@@cryyc Well, I am.

@@boogathon You are what?

​@@ErikDPhillips If you look close, you can see I was replying to Cryyc. I understand, because, I've made the same misteak (but I never misspell a word).

Confirmation bias science is the only science. Isnt that the rule? 😂

Did you even bother watching the whole thing because it literally doesn't say that.

@@distantraveller9876 Technically it doesnt half to 'say that'. If you only present selected pieces of science in your statement, video, presentation or whatever one is doing that's what it is. Why weren't any of these numbers in video link in this video? They were conveinantly left out of this video were commenting on. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qtp-mpR3nLqUiWQ.htmlfeature=shared

Yes, he invented what probably is one of the most important mathematical algorithms.

And Eunice Foote was just a chick.

@@ceeemm1901 oh no , Sir, she was more than a mere chick. She was a rather hot chick.

@@areyouavinalaughisheavinal5328 Yeah,and as someone said in 1967, "What she did was a gas, man".

@@ceeemm1901 I hope you're being sarcastic. She was extraordinary, despite everything stacked against her. And note that her accomplishments weren't limited to just discovering the most important issue of the following centuries, but she also was an inventor. What have you done?

you really believe that CARBON is the ONLY factor?

The video isn't a comprehensive explanation of climate. It's about climate history. You might crack a climate textbook though, where you'd read about Milankovitch Cycles, and how the periods of time they act on are about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude too slow to be even remotely relevant to the sharp warming of recent decades. Or, you can remain ignorant and just spill your derp on comment boards looking foolish.

@@markw4206 What is this sharp warming you speak of? We have no instrument records beyond a relative snap-shot of history. For all you know this 'sharp warming' is normal or even slower than previous warming. And never forget...we're in an inter-glacial period so we're destined to freeze over again sooner or later. After which it'll start getting warmer! You see a pattern emerging?

@@markw4206 Hey Simon, can't figure out this rant can you? Seems to be upset that you gave a history of man's understanding of climate change, for some reason expecting a comprehensive explanation of climate?" Bizarre? or just on drugs?? Then rants that you missed the Milankovitch Cycles (there are 3 of 'em) but then rants that they are "too slow to be even remotely relevant?" Bizarre? most likely drugs? These precious "Milankovitch Cycles" are ACCOUNTED for in the climate models because they in small part add to the Energy received by Earth from the Sun.

So funny when the cult members can't understand how YT comments work and get at each other.

Absolutely! “They” never talk about good old water vapor which is 3X more effective than CO2. Water naturally swings between 10,000 and 40,000 ppm in our atmosphere. 150 ppm increase of CO2 is a calamity? Ice cores show higher CO2 levels during ice ages. The Martian atmosphere is predominantly CO2. Why is it so cold?

@@murphygraham4724 Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth. Because it has about a sixth of the pressure of Earth’s atmosphere, the planet doesn’t retain heat very long, causing temperatures to drop quickly.

Yes, CO2 is a very minor contributor of greenhouse effect but how to tax water vapor and clouds? how to get peoples culprit about water? So false informations is the key. It is your fault, basic human, if the earth is going warmer.... not mention that it has been way warmer than now. And try not to supress all CO2, vegetables will die, so will animals... and we are animals, wether you like it or not.

Denial is not just a river.. Drill baby drill is what I am hearing. fuk dat.

​@@michaelmarron8441true Mars has a thinner atmosphere but did you bother to ask why? Just might have something to do with the lack of water.

besides extreme events like astroid impacts the climate has never this fast and even if it did it's still a bad thing

Yes correct and that is the real inconvenient truth

@@Lord_Rowlet Well, there's nothing we can really do to stop it and likely not even slow it down. Humankind will die off one way or another, perhaps another massive volcano eruption, possibly in the Western US causing a cloud which would block the sun for many years. Everything dies. It's happened before.

Except this? This isn't the Earth changing, this is *US* changing the Earth. WE are responsible for this sudden warming, and we'll all suffer the consequenced if we don't take action now

Yes, today as a matter of fact ;)

it is all about control

@@bradmcclure4945 just like organized religion

@@deathryder711 false analogy watch and lean kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7Jxec-CnMnXk2w.html

Fringes are often right but not rich.

@@woodsghost9088 True. Scientists get rich by following the government or big corporate narrative. Ask Fauci.

I know doctors who appreciated KZfaq's expertise in censoring what other doctors were allowed to share concerning their findings dealing with COVID patients.

exactly big tech trying to control the narrative by removing content that challenges their false narrative

I can do a bit further... We Homo-sapiens have been around for almost 300,000 years and have survived some very extreme climate changes. Yet, we are thriving. Go figure!

I'm still waiting to freeze to death in coming Ice Age/Nuclear Winter (take your pick). That is if I don't get cancer from the Ozone Hole or die from AIDS unable to get treatment since I can't find my way to a hospital due to pole shift screwing my compass. Walking since solar storms have fried my car's electronics. A car with no gas since all petroleum has been exhausted by 2012 (per Jimmy Carter). Starving due to famine caused by overpopulation. Hopefully my hazmat suit can withstand the acid rain. Wait! Did anyone else feel that? Oh no! It's Yellowstone.

@@chucklesthered2338 yes thanks to technology oil and gas

Facts are facts and anthropogenic global warming is one of them. It is as well established as the Earth not been flat. You don't think the Earth is flat, do you?!

@@petewright4640 That's why they had to rename and redefine it. Not to mention their every prediction has failed or that we're told weather is a local event when it doesn't fit their doomsday predictions but proof when it does. It's not about whether it's 'real' or not it's about the politicized solutions that don't really address it and the failure to produce a plan b if and when they fail. Considering the absolute worst possible scenario nothing climate activist promote will reverse 200 years of man made co2 creation. Especially not since the population has quadrupled since we started (and as a direct result) using fossil fuels. No plan to migrate farther inland. No laws to prevent building on coastlines. In fact the leaders promoting it are buying up beachfront property. Hmm! I wonder why they're doing that?

Unfortunately, it seems that there aren't even any photos of her. The image used in the video is actually of Foote's daughter, Mary.

it is far more complicated than most understand it to be anyone who studied chaos theory is familiar with what is called the butterfly effect which is why all computer modeling of climate fail

Unfortunately, we haven't been studying the planet for the last 40,000 years. So the best thing to do would be to leave it alone, and let it do its own thing

@@ronaldss859 we can study the last 40kyears by carbon dating and analyzing the tree rings of petrified wood from a petrified forest

@@bradmcclure4945 do you remember mount Saint Helens or Upton and causing devastation in a matter of hours not thousands of years to create caverns much like the Grand Canyon..... so much for tree rings... My point is this go on in living room life do your own thing and the planet will take care of itself until such a time that God the creator is done with it .....

@@ronaldss859 absolutely lived close enough for ash to fall down around my house

Then you know that changes in solar irradiance and the Milankovitch Cycles are currently in cooling phases and have been for hundreds of years and for hundreds of year to come, so they can’t account for the current global warming, which is happening at an unnaturally fast rate, because it is being driven by a manmade forcing more powerful than the current natural known forcings. Yes, the planet is greening as predicted by climate science. Also most of the global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take four times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, and most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of certain crops, but no increase in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops. Crop yields are good nowadays due to technology even in global CO2 levels of 421 ppm, but we can’t produce the protein per acre like we used to. When food is grown at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of protein you can produce per acre. We are already seeing major crops like rice, wheat, corn and even soybeans becoming less productive where average mean temps have increased slightly in the last ten years. Rice is also becoming less nutritious in high CO2 conditions. That being said we know that plants can acclimatize or adjust to rising CO2, but the fertilization effect of CO2 diminishes over time. In a greenhouse this is not a problem because they have excellent soil, optimal amounts of water, and controlled temps.

@@rps1689 Solar irradiance is currently actually higher than before. The effect of the Milankovitch cycles takes quite some time to notice. Peak of our current warm period as by the Milankovitch cycles was about 7000 years ago and since the different cycles run between 40.000 and 100.000 years we're still feeling the effect of that. It'll take another couple of 1000's of years before we start experiencing the cooling effect of being in the cooling down phase of these cycles. Most of the greening of the earth is due to plants now being able to grow where they weren't able to grow before, i.e. in harsh environments. Due to higher temperatures they can now grow in previously frozen areas like permafrost areas. Due to an increase in CO2 plants don't have to open their pores as much to be able to capture enough CO2. Having to open those pores less means they don't have as much water evaporating which means they can now grow in warm areas where they weren't able to grow before. The fact that crops have less nutritions nowadays is not as much due to higher levels of CO2 but due to our crops largely having been genetically modified to grow faster giving them less time to accumulate those nutritions. They did a nice test which shows that fact by putting up two cobs of corn for squirrels , one of which was genetically modified (the corn, not the squirrel). Guess which one got eaten. Yes, changes in climate affect the biodiversity. They always have and always will. About 90% of all known previous life on earth has become extinct over time and other forms of life have come to life because of it. That's what we call nature. And like I said, of course we humans have an impact on the climate but not as much as the Milankovitch cycles which cause ice ages (which we don't). If you look at data going back 150 years the weather hasn't become more extreme, there aren't more hurricanes or heat waves (global average temperature is only 0,5C higher than 50 years ago) and the sea level has only risen by on average 1 inch per decade. BTW, in the last warm period (about 130.000 years ago) sea levels were about 5 meters higher than they are now. They have also been much lower during ice ages (up to 100 meters lower). So even sea levels are a cycle. The main problem is that we are a large population and have build houses and other structures all over the place and when for instance a hurricane hits, the damage is big, there is a lot of suffering and it is all over the news. So it seems as if things are worse than say 100 years ago whereas they aren't. The models predicting the future as far as global warming goes are way off, on average by a factor 2 yet nobody seems interested in rectifying that problem. Why? Because the powers that be like to present us with problems, with crisis and then offer us a solution. Usually a solution that involves us spending money and limiting our freedom. Here's a good video to watch on climate change: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p7CmZKyBs8C1kaM.html

@@easy_s3351 Christy? Seriously? This is the guy that lied about climate’s sensitivity to CO2, lies about GHGs, lies about internal variability, lies about the effect of climate change on agriculture, lies about the cooling affect of aerosols and the planets inertia in order to argue that the rate of increase over the last century ins nothing to worry about, lies about the occurrence of weather disasters in the past, lies about the dominant forcings, lies about rural and regional temperatures, ignores most recent satellite data, doesn’t tell you that a climate scientist that becomes a flack for the fossil fuel industry makes much much more money than the top leading working scientist in the world do, lies about the recent global temps that are unprecedented in the last one thousand years, he also knows that temperature adjustments are made in order to render raw data more accurate, but because of political reasons, doesn’t tell you, and lied about there being a consensus about a future global ice age in science especially in the 1970s; and the list goes on. I'm all too familiar with how he uses his usual distortions with misleading graphs to distort samples of emissions from satellite data by visual trickery. Not surprising from a guy that exacerbates Model-Data discrepancy and lies about TLT measurements saying they are made by a single satellite then fails to tell his audience that measurement instruments don’t have lifetimes of 34 years, which is why the splicing together the measurements from various different satellite instruments is done. Are you familiar with the outdoor field studies in Japan and China, growing different strains of rice in air under the same atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is predicted for the year 2100? They found the rice grown in these conditions had substantially less 1 vitamin B1 , B2, B5 and especially B9 (folate) than rice grown under current CO2 concentrations. When the most powerful physical forcings at the time are cyclic, then the climate's response is cyclic. When there's a one time forcing, the climate change happens once. The last few glacial periods in the Pleistocene were synchronous with the 105,000 year precession cycle. They're in a cooling phase right now yet we are not in a global cooling trend due anthropogenic warming; the current rapid increase in CO2 is manmade. All numerical models are “wrong” per se, which Includes the models we use to design spacecraft and chips that work right the first time. They are “wrong” because correctness is a matter of degree, not a binary on or off thing. These models in the hands of experts who understand their limitations deliver useful results. Everybody knows the CMIP5 and 6 models run hot, but that doesn't mean they're worthless. The observations have been inside the projection cones for fifty years. The models are right enough. We know it is a fact that Spencer/Christy UAH satellite set has been hyped by conservative and “skeptic” media, as if it were the only reliable data set and that Spencer/Christy were the only reliable scientists, more than anything else because their data set at one point diverged so widely from most of the others, but they are largely in alignment, indicating that mainstream climate science has been right all the time.

Well said!

Part 2: Ronnie Raygun was elected and the possibility of addressing Global Warming died

"Now all that's need is for the scientists to explain why................" Go and ask the scientists, that strangely enough, have affiliations with fossil fuel industry funded lobby groups. They have already told you everything you want hear, so you may as well ask them to feed you more of what you want to hear. 🤣🤣🤣

China and India are heavily into solar energy at the moment actually .

*It's window dressing. The amount of energy generated from solar are minuscule, compared to the needs of China & India.* *The cost of creating the infrastructure to harness "solar" is astronomical. It would be nothing short of an environmental catastrophe to mine the materials needed. Hydrocarbons are very efficient and do not in any way contribute to "climate change.* @@persona250

@@persona250 because they are making billions off idiots in other countries. CO2 isn't the threat that Climate Change purveyors keep trying to claim. Ironically the Methane levels over the last decade are indicative of markers similar to that of leaving an ice age. Which also brings the Younger Dryas into question as it could have been an anomaly that brought the end of the previous ice age to a close early by around 11,800yrs. As such the interglacial we are currently in, may well have only just started as far as the last 1M yrs of cycles go.

Dude, too much reality there, you're going to explode the heads of the brainwashed sheep, lol.

Sure. Isn't MAN the primary reason the Earth's CARBON exchange process is so fucked up?

@@mrunning10 Maybe.

@@josephtessari8769 Water vapor is only a feedback mechanism dependent on temperature. CO2 drives the temperature. Water vapor can't drive temperature.

Brings to mind a common lie told by climate change “skeptics” is scientists ignore the water vapour in their analysis. By huge measure water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas of all, causes variations in atmospheric temperature variations, but water vapour is a feedback, not a primary forcing, to a very good first approximation, because it rains out. The arithmetic sign of that feedback is positive, which makes it an amplifier. If only we could demonstrate water vapour feedback (to the forcing by noncondensing GHGs) with a negative sign. We’d be famous and rich.

Global warming: An inconvenient pile of bull sh!t. Sorry lemmings, you've been had (again).

That´s just the laast 200 yrs. What does the paleo-proxydata over the last 25-30 thousand years indicate?

@@andrewrourke9519 Marcott et al 2013.

Yeah in 1912 they also believed the Martians were an advanced race of beings which created expensive canals in order to fight climate change on their planet.

@@chinajoebinlying1773 Who is "they"?

Except for ONE difference numbnuts, only MAN, in the past 450 years, has dug UP, drilled UP, and mined UP mega tons of carbon, which is NOT part of the natural carbon exchange process for billions of years BEFORE man started doing this. Wake UP.

​@@mrunning10 😆 🤣

I'm not a scientist, but what you're talking about is how particulate matter introduced to the atmosphere by combustion has a net cooling effect, but only stays airborne for a few weeks, so if combustion were to stop the earth would lose that cooling effect in the same time frame. But don't forget the atmosphere and oceans are very massive, and would take decades to warm up and come into equilibrium, so global average temperatures would not so suddenly increase. I believe the estimates as to how much net cooling aerosols provide are uncertain, but in the range of .2C - .5C, rather than 2C.

@@robertcartwright4374 Thanks for your input. I suppose that even a sudden increase of 0.5 C could be catastrophic. I understand that it takes about 3-6 weeks for the paticulate aerosolized matter to fall to the ground.

That last sentence convinced me you are full of it. I hope you are American, and I hope you experience the record breaking heat they are already experiencing.

Yep! I can attest all that is true!

If you go back 18,000 years in human history, where I live in NH was under a mile of ice. As late as 15,000 years ago the sea levels were 200 feet lower than today - that's an average rise of 9 inches a century. 8,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was grasslands and forests. 1,000AD was called the 'mediaeval warm period' with world temps over 1 degree hotter than average now. it was followed by the 'Little Ice Age' from 1500-1900AD and then this manmade catastrophe of Global Warming. Obviously, the Earth has warmed significantly in recorded history, and it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions. Humans DO tend to think that we are the cause of everything unusual. Hundreds of years ago, civilizations would perform ritual sacrifices when a comet or lunar eclipse occurred, because we didn't know what was going on and blamed ourselves. So, given the wild temperature swings that we have seen in the last 20,000 years, how can we be so positive we are to blame for climate change?

@@pattonpending7390 Correctomundo, compadre. I agree with your analysis. The only quibble is with "...it cant all be explained by CO2 emissions." Actually, almost none of the observed global warming corellates with rising CO2.

The ozone hole discovery and the subsequent banning of a refrigerant that had just gone out of patent set the template for manipulating "science" to affect a desired policy.

@@jonmcdaniel8492 I take it that you have talked to The British Antarctic Survey. And know all the facts.

Nailed it. What may have started as science is now political. "Science" is just a wrapper to make the political goals appear unassailable.

Exactly, and it is full of history falsification already.... I cannot understand the enthusiastic reactions here.

Perfect comment

The Fourth industrial revolution is really the Fourth Reich with the Nazi Klaus Schwab following through with Hitler's Plan.

Science is science, not consensus.

WEF leveraging the scientific consensus to push an agenda is a recent development and doesn't undermine the science underpinning climate change.

They have not been erased at all dude.

@@darthmaul216 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e7aJhal62JvGoI0.html

and he lost a million dollars in court because he could not produce the data.

Also, it has been proven that Mann's analysis leads to a "hockey stick" graph regardless of the data set. Even random numbers.

@@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511 WTF are you talking about? What court? What caser? What "data?" just provide a link or reference if you can.

@@mrunning10 why the aggression? it's true, you can check it. i've tried to leave details on this comment section and been shadow banned. look up tim ball michael mann

michael mann hockey stick fraud. i don't even know if you will see these comments

Nobody is pushing for removal of CO2... Just normal levels of CO2, pre industrial levels... We're in a mass exinction event. Pollenators are dying at a record rate, which will result in agricultural death if we dont deak with it now. Buddy, you dont understand the topic...

Yesss! My thoughts exactly

One good volcano and we all freeze.

Let me predict Part 2: "OMG, Globaloney is gonna get us all! Run for your lives!!"

Also beware of data tampering and Revision of temperature records, in an effort to have the temp graphs match the predictions of "hockey stick" warming. Notice how warm weather events are promoted, while unusually cold temps are ignored. Are we looking for the comprehensive truth? Do researchers who Do Not promote the orthodoxy get teaching positions and contracts?

I remember when the same people told us mass famines were coming if the global population grew by even a quarter and something has to be done to lower the population if its not even already late. Then the global population doubled and malnourishment dropped to a record low. I don't remember any of the scientists and politicians ever apologizing though...

@@YAHOO28258 Famine is coming, but it's not due to climate change... (although it is being fomented by the same players who are pushing the anthropogenic climate change myth...)

@@YAHOO28258 maybe that's because it didn't double overnight but over a long time and as a result they had time to increase food production and transportation. looking at one metric without context is not good enough to prove anything, in fact its exactly what con-men do to mislead people.

@@h20dancing18 world population around 1900 was 1.5 billion. It reached 7 billion about 10 years ago. Currently almost 8 billion. That is really fast.

Leslie Uggams! I thought she was dead!

I’ve recently watched a video by a channel called Astrum which seemed very comprehensive