I think civil unrest due to climate policies are more likely. People don't like being poorer and colder and locked in 15 minute cities at all. I don't know anyone who takes climate change seriously anymore. Decades of predictions that never came true and political manipulations of Green created disasters. Fake fires and floods so they can kick people out of homes. I've also studied history and nothing unusual is happening to the climate.

@@grannyannie2948 Climate change itself hurts the poor. Wind and solar power are also the cheapest sources of energy on earth, and adding them to the grid isn't going to impoverish anyone, unless you believe the fossil fuel industry's relentless propaganda. Decades of predictions that never came true? What predictions? By who? Outliers? Crackpots? These do not represent a consensus of mainstream scientists. Super important to understand the difference. Fifty years ago, the scientists predicted that temperatures would continue to rise today. They predicted accelerating sea level rise, intensifying hurricanes, expansion of wildfire seasons, and increases in heatwaves, marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, extreme precipitation events, droughts , and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. They were right about EVERYTHING. The internet is a cesspool of misinformation, endlessly circulating "predictions" by scientists that scientists never actually made. Among these fake predictions: the polar icecaps would be melted now; New York and Florida would be underwater; the world would descend into a new Ice Age. Don't be fooled. According to investigations by Drexel University, the fossil fuel industry funds nearly 100 climate change-denying front groups, think tanks and websites, all of which work seven days a week to spread misinformation and disinformation about climate science, including the "failed predictions of scientists."

Climate change due to co2 is a nonsense.

There are an estimated 177k abondoned wells in Alberta - all steadily leaking methane.

Exactly my thoughts.

What exactly is degrowth?

​@@mikewalker8956degrowth is where society stops their insane consumerism which will lower our overall energy expenditure. It focusses instead on human well-being by ensuring adequate healthcare, housing, locally and community grown food etc. Only problem with it is that the way our economic system is set up is that if an economy stops growing, it collapses. Degrowth needs to evolve slowly to ensure human needs are maintained throughout the process. Well, there is also the other problem that people will rebel against it because they will view it as a lowering of their living standards.

@@squeaker19694 “Be the change you want to see in the world “

Net zero means end to all life on Earth. Scientific language in communication tries to be precise and consistent.

So called green energy replacing fossil fuel will definitely lead to chaos.

It also takes more energy i.e. fossil fuel burning, to remove the sulphur. This is why the policy was likely so quickly jumped on by the petrochemical industry without any call for studies that they constantly ask for with CO2 mitigation.

Sounds cool.

@@glenwarrengeologywhat does?

You could do a Google search for all of that yourself. And pick credible sources, not some wingnut propaganda outlet.

Remember Ike’s warning.

I seriously wonder if Russia doesn't see global warming as a positive military position. They will have access to the Arctic, possibly greater food production, while the balance of world weakens. The same might apply to Canada and the US.

Military started to use electric vehicles (for instance electric bikes in Ukraine), Australia developed battery powered Bushmaster armoured truck, electric drones too - also don't forget nuclear power. Russians deployed unmounted infantry in Ukraine recently. But yes, in general things like jets or tanks need a lot of fuel.

​@@timeenoughforart There are definitely trying to increase presence in the Arctic - but they are not immune - for instance large fires in Siberia.

@@qbas81 Also don't forget the explosives. When used they often generate ghg's, soot and aerosols. And what is often even more harmful is the needed reconstruction afterwards... How much ghg's is needed to build entire cities that are destroyed in places like Ukraine and Gaza? (Of course current climate change is destoying cities too with flooding and wildfires...) Electric military equipments are a tiny thing among all other ghg generation. Trucks, fuel trucks, tanks, jets, most armoured vehicles, explosives, ships, current production lines, ... The amount of ghg's made by militaries are huge, even when they are not in combat. And also having the backbone made for fossil fuel usage means you have to have fossil fuel reserves, that continues the ghg making in other sectors too.

Yeah it's experimental and not proven at scale.

Clearly he's the darling of all the fossil fuel greenwash PR pros. And the purported originator of 'net zero', which is the theme of all delay strategies.

The one I know about is located in Canada. It's not a success. It was supposed to capture 98% of the CO2 and it is barely able to acheive 57%. And, the compressed and liquified CO2 is injected underground to help extracting more oil and gaz... After spending hundreds millions dollars, I don't think we are saving the planet with this kind of machine. It is not humanity that faces a climate problem (which would imply that's a technical challenge with potentially a technological solution). The real issue is that the Earth system have a human problem. As long as our human activities are not aligned with planetary bounderies, we could fix climate but it will induce a boomerang effet. We need a profound change in our relation with the Earth system.

There may be a new demand for carbon… to make graphene, for specific emerging technologies. After harvested out of the atmosphere and water, it can go into a new kind of micro chip.

Why talk about Carbon when you mean CO2 .

Net Zero would keep it from getting much worse. The change that has happend will remain, for the most part.

@@csr7080 So how much CO2 comes from unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence? When have you heard a climate scientist mention that?

@@psikeyhackr6914 All the time. Scientists, including climate scientists, are pretty insistent on telling us our consumption habits are unsustainable. It just feels like no one really listens.

@@csr7080 I said specifically "Planned Obsolescence". I have not encountered that from climate scientists. Ever heard of a Bathtub Curve? The Model-T Ford was introduced 60 years before the Moon landing and we are now 50 years afterward. Locomotives were being made 100 years before the Model-T. Don't you suppose engineers know how to specify durability and reliability by now? Consider the James Webb Space Telescope. They know no one can be sent out to fix it. That doesn't mean consumer stuff on Earth should break all of the time. Now we have a Repo Crisis in cars. I have Never owned a new car and have not been to an auto show in 40+ years. Why anyone cares what they look like is beyond me.

@@psikeyhackr6914 Climate scientists don't deal with product manufacturing. It's unlikely the people making models for our climate will spend their time giving talks on industrial design, because that is not their specialty. What are you trying to get at, what is you point exactly?

Crop yields would not collapse if CO2 was rapidly reduced. Where the ef did you read that bs? We were alright at 350 ppm. But it's now 420 ppm +. And FYI at 40 degrees Celsius plant metabolism stops and the flora at that point actually starts putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Earth's declining magnetic field is what causing all the changes we see. CO2 has never and will never change the climate.

That's ridiculous. Crop yields would not be reduced, "professor." Anyway, it would take a herculean, almost impossible global effort for atmospheric CO2 to be reduced even a little, and that's not going to happen, only MORE added to ruin the climate. At some stage desperate measure will be taken, but it'll certainly be well beyond the point of no return. We're doomed. .

​@@ducthman4737100%

CO2 never has and never will control the climate. This talk is full of lies. Earth is in an Ice Age right now.

400 to 500 ppm.

@@jamesgreig5168 AAAHAHAHAAHAH Definitely NOT, pops. Atmospheric CO2 levels of between 280 and 350 parts per million created the climate that let humanity build and feed the modern world. For a period of at least the last 800,000 years, CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 during glacial periods to 300 parts per million during interglacial periods, according to high-resolution ice-core records from Antarctica. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 has spiked precipitously upward- Currently 426ppm- an extremely fast rate of increase; there's a lot of inertia in the climate system - like turning the Titanic- but now the climate is responding. Rough times ahead. .

@@SteffiReitsch So for most of the last 200 million years (except the recent 2.6 M years the Ice Age we are still living in) life must have had a really Rough time. You just wonder why most commercial greenhouses are at 1200 ppm CO2. But if CO2 really controls the climate why would you want it lower? Why would you want to have a mile of ice over Canada or Scotland or the land of Greta? (very bad for farming) Please show me the scientific paper that proves CO2 controls the climate.

@@jamesgreig5168 The last time CO2 reached 400ppm, sea level rose 29 feet, according to the University of South Hampton. 29 feet. Today we're at 424ppm. The only reason we haven't seen 29 feet yet is time, as ice melt greatly lags CO2. But we're well on our way, with a four inch rise since 1993 and a doubling of its rate, according to NASA. 29 feet will be catastrophic, and there is no stopping it at this point because we waited too long to reduce emissions. It's also important to note that heatwaves have TRIPLED since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA. Extreme precipitation events are up all over the world. Drought intensity and durations have also increased. Marine heatwaves are up 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. Ocean acidification is rising rapidly. So are tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. All stemming from rising CO2 and a warming world. According to a UN bulletin, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. Thus 400-500ppm is a number hard to support.

Higher and higher emissions every year would do it...

Agreed 👍

Yes it's getting hotter quicker but it's not hard to explain.

all doors are open. Down here in NZ we see the aurora on the horizon! With our ATLAS we will RISE up like A G

@@user-qv8dw2lg6b What does that even mean?

that would require normies to leave nature alone

I started the video. And if he does not mention that he is problably just fear mongering for demanding more taxesand restrictions bs.

The problem isn't just carbon, it's the energy too. Soil will only change in temperature.

Yeah because no one knows how important soil is for growth. JFC! Try another one troll.

@@bluegold21 This is a reply you should ashamed of.

You might as well have a heartfelt chat with the sun and ask it to stop the cycles.

Fossil fuels has literally saved billions of lives. You want to see a truly Mad Max world, end fossil fuels. You could not get through your day without them.

Sorry I prefer having food to eat.

1. Scientists job to alert politicians. 2. Politicians job to allocate funding for solutions. 3. Engineers job to build solutions. 4. Scientists job to help fix the mess afterwards. Scientists have done their bit, but we're stuck on step 2. Basically, they are reluctant to pay the bills, preferring to leave these problems to our children to pay, with interest. Bad plan.

@@naomieyles210 To get reelected, politicians only do what they think their constituents want them to do , and in this case not much. Too many ignorant people, conspiracy and religious kooks, etc. Anyway, it would take huge sacrifice, and the masses of people don't want to sacrifice. Whatever, just more dithering, and anyway, the window has closed, WE'RE DOOMED. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming decades as food prices soar and the chaos starts.

It really boils down to having authoritarian climate zealots dictate to everyone else - "live the way we say. Adopt our values", always followed by threats.

@@anthonymorris5084 well that would be nice but it's not happening so we'll just carry on as usually

@@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039 It's a matter of perspective. Rights and freedoms are more important than harmless warming.

@@anthonymorris5084 well, the floods in Brazil last years wildfires in Canada and the dying coral reefs don't sound harmless to me. We're all biological organisms depending entirely on our ecosystems for life support. Once it's destroyed life is going to be brutal for everyone

@@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039 Floods in Brazil didn't begin the day you were born. The Canadian Ministry of Natural Resources has a web site. They have forest fire data and a graph. The graph clearly shows that forest fires have been in decline for 44 years. How do you reconcile this with your statements? The American forestry department has data going back more than 75 years. Burn acreage and fires have been in consistent and precipitous decline for this entire duration. You are willfully ignoring data and getting your information from media which sensationalizes everything.

Rice 🌾

How does change over 20k years compare the changes we have been making since the industrial age? Yes the earth is a dynamic system and it changes over time, our problems are rapidly induced changes which we are smart enough to know where it is coming from, hence the alarms being raised. The answers to your questions don’t change the hard truths.

@@xvegitto Right, no amount of draging us back to the 19th century will produce any predicitable reduction in anything , and if it does a volcano eruption will erase that in a day!!!

You should let the climate scientists know this. I bet they'll be very embarrassed: Doing all this science and math without knowing that the last ice age occurred and that it invalidates all their findings.

@@biffandhapp418 I will when you let all COVID scientists know how much BS That was

Which we need far more than metaphysical speculation… 👼 📍 🌎 🌞 🌧️

So many people showing unashamed ignorence about scientific matters, it is worrying. 8 year old children know climatS are changing no matter what, so what's the deal ... ? False dilemma on fake premise.

​@@FernandoWINSANTOThe children I know don't believe. Their parents were taught about this over twenty years ago and nothing they were told ever came true.

1000 years ago Vikings were exporting woolen cloth weaved from the sheep grazing on green pastures.

In Greenland.

Why would we build acquatic cities? We're not running out of dry land to build on, and dry land is better in pretty much every single way.

@@csr7080 climate change will change the landscape of coastal cities around the world and also create flooding erosion droughts and stronger natural disasters across the land. Aquatic cities will provide stability for communities to live in better climate and also provide resource of hydrogen power and fresh water from the ocean. A city could literally move anywhere in the world during the seasons to provide optimal climate conditions for the community. Hope i answered you question.

@@PoliticalChaos To allow for the surveying of the British Colonies and the mapping needed, all around the world sea level datum points were put in place for the surveyors to base their work from. In the over 200 years since, sea levels have not increased at all.Easily checked too. So how many more Lies have you swallowed? 🤣

@@PoliticalChaos PS. The rather serious issue with hydrogen as fuel is the bulk quantities that will be around. Possibly thereason the prospects for hydrogen as fuel after extensive research after the 1970’s Oil Crisis, when basically everything was sorted out and working, was the reality that Hydrogen is a very high explosive which unfortunately doesn’t even need complex detonators to b used to set it off? A spark will do. Fancy large amounts of that about the place and available for terrorists to use do you ? Or do you think somehow that only nice non violent people will be around for you to face ?🤣

@@PoliticalChaos Weather at Sea, will guarantee that there will never be the “stability” that you anticipate. Sorry burst your bubble. The only time I have been Seasick, was for three and a half days stuck in a force 10.5 Gale that hadn’t been forecast in the Bay of Biscay. The Waves were massive, and were nothing like as bad as those in a Storm in a Century Effect. Borders between Continental Shelves and Deep Water Ocean are frequently seriously very bad news. Remember when Superwaves were thought to be fictional, until a Research Ship with Scientists on board was almost sunk by one ? Turns out Super waves are pretty common after all Meeting one is not recommended. 🤔

Yet isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 molecules today clearly shows that the 140ppm of increase since the industrial revolution has come from combusted fossil fuels, not nature. According to NASA, the Covid lockdown didn't change the CO2 reading because the absence of that extra CO2's weight on the ocean allowed the ocean to release more of its own CO2, which helped to balance out the loss.

Your point?

Same happens to me. As women dominate voting, we must be politically correct and sweet talking. They vote themselves custody and employment laws, so men are having their children and office jobs stolen. We must not mention this. Instead to avoid having commentary deleted, we must mention womens empowerment, womens rights, all child custody to women and all office jobs to women, power to women.

Whiners

The

cen

ship

How do you think those balloons are made. How do you think they are lifted into the air? It takes a lot of energy to do that which is primarily via fossil fuel burning. And did you not pay attention to the fact that sulphur only remains in the atmosphere for 1 or 2 years whereas CO2 has an average lifespan of 50 years. Do the math. Think. And the alternative is renewables obviously. But whenever that clear solution is offered to anyone addicted to the notion that fossil fuels are key to the economy they always reply 'What other solutions are there'.🤪 Like brainwashed minions, the solution is offered but you ignore it because that is what Big Oil has taught you to say. Either wake up or grow up!

Abject lie without an ounce of evidence.

Loved your last paragraph. Also demonstrates their abject hypocrisy, authoritarian nature and lack of credibility.

Fortune telling? Fifty years ago they told us that gigatons of ice would melt off Antarctica and Greenland, sea level would rise, storm surges would elevate, hurricanes would intensify, extreme precipitation events and heatwaves would increase, and we'd continue to break warming records. All are happening. They were right.

Well said. I don't know any one who still believes their fairy tales. Decades of predictions that never happened

What is your point? Here is a possible rejoinder from chatGPT4: When someone points out that carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up only about 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere to minimize the concern about climate change, it's helpful to understand and communicate why even this seemingly small amount is significant. Here’s how you can respond: 1. **Explain the Role of CO2**: Although CO2 is a minor component of the atmosphere in terms of percentage, it plays a disproportionate role in trapping heat. This is because CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface that would otherwise escape into space. This process, known as the greenhouse effect, is crucial for maintaining the planet's temperature and supporting life but becomes problematic when intensified by additional CO2. 2. **Highlight the Increase in Concentration**: Over the past century, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2-from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial era to over 410 ppm today. This increase is linked directly to global warming. 3. **Discuss the Impact of Small Changes**: Even small changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 can have large effects on the climate. The increase in CO2 levels enhances the greenhouse effect, leading to global warming and climate changes including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems. 4. **Use Analogies**: Sometimes it helps to use analogies to convey the impact. For example, a very small amount of a potent substance can have a large effect, much like a tiny amount of arsenic can be fatal. 5. **Refer to Scientific Consensus**: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that rises in CO2 levels caused by human activity are driving global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by decades of research and data collected by organizations worldwide. 6. **Emphasize Urgency and Action**: Argue that understanding the significance of increased CO2 levels is crucial for taking action. Reducing emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources are necessary steps to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. These points can help frame your response to show that the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is misleadingly minimal when considering its potent effect on global temperatures and climate. Do you disagree with any of this? Which part? Do you have data?

0.004% of your pronouncements are interesting and useful.

@@Tim_Small Amusing.

Yes, fascinating how small concentrations can have big effects, isn't it? Here's a glass of water btw, I promise there is less than 0.04% Novichok in it.

And while that is wonderful it's not the issue. The issue is how big is a million sized parcel of molecules? It's really tiny and this is why ppm is the measurement used. Next, I'd like to ask what is atmosphere? Not sure if you know but 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100klm's high. Now if you are in all your wisdom regurgitating a factoid, I'd like to know are you saying "the atmosphere" or are you talking this fine little sliver of it? Nevertheless, let us get back to how many trillions of molecules are in the one metre above you. You realise these carbon molecules attach to two oxygen molecules that not only make the molecule wider but that they let sunlight in but trap radiant heat in like a doona on a hot summer night and that these trillions upon trillions of molecules being added to just the single metre above you are being multiplied at a rate of 2.8 per million sized parcel of air and along with this addition we are pumping overloading amounts of heat, that even if we didn't pump in more stored co2 that it's the heat we are pumping in too? We seem to let people limit the conversation to one side only of this equation, the co2 could be zero, we are emitting huge amounts of energy and for what? more plastic trinkets?

Honestly don't bother people saying this again. It's a waste of peoples lives.

@@antonyjh1234 Elaborate 🙏

How do you convert CO2 into carbon monoxide?

@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature they pulled my reply. One sec

@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature answer above

Yes, we just want to ignore the rest of the world. All of its problems. You're fine. I'm fine everybody's fine. There's not a problem here.

Pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Lies from Brown. Brown, Exxon is run by geophysicists, so they know physics. Exxon hired a bunch of atmospheric chemists and physicists 50 years ago, and Exxon’s own atmospheric physicists showed that if you add 40 billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up.

yes, I think this person brownnoise357 is a deliberate liar. Making a completely false statement about CO2 with no justification and then making an irrelevant remark about coolants and refrigerants to give an impression that there is something scientific about this bare-faced lie. Hope nobody is impressed. And for the record, hundreds of the most reputable scientists not only agree that CO2 is a GHG and on exactly how CO2 acts as a GHG, they have also quantified the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate sensitivity of CO2 doubling is at least 2 C and could be as high as 6 C.

This was already in 1824 debunked. You are 200 years to late to the discussion.

@@TheSphat what is it about the workings of Coolants and Refrigerant properties that can be debunked, or that the Oceans contain about 140 times more CO2 than the atmosphere for that matter ? A rather pathetic attempt at drive by trolling with absolutely no effort at even clarifying your non assertion tbh. Not kept up with very recent Mars Atmosphere Research either have you.🤣🤣🤣❤️