:) :)

yup the people are sheep the planet is laughing

Please explain which bit of this you don’t agree with and why. 💚🌍💚

Yeah, so funny. NOT

Diareah of the mouth not a single scientific fact (cause) just a bunch of speculative reasons for our current state.

What should be made apparent the Sun's impact on global warming it can go the other way cooling there being evidence to support that in Earth's history there being an ice age there should be difference between man made pollution there being an impact from that on our lives having so many people in the world has a impact relating to man made pollution

all those wannabe smart ppl, science gets us the data - interpretation is always subjective and connected with ppls interests

J Pitman : and .....conscience nor integrity!

Science never turns into political. Politics try to talk science.

Maria Colls the earth can heal but not if we keep plundering it at the rate it is. There needs to be a concerted effort to slow down and move towards greener power, that is what the Paris Agreement was about, it's time governments did what they signed up to do which is lower emissions anyway they can and if that requires moving to sustainable energy then it is up to them to do it. Ultimately the people can vote against it or for it. In the meantime, everyone must live sustainably to encourage the movement for change, look up zero-waste if you don't know already. Going vegan is the most obvious move, This is the way forward while change and policies occur, it won't happen overnight - it will take time that we are running out of.

@@Anita-md9ze It has to be on each individual's effort however. If you drive a car, run your air conditioner, leave lights on, eat meat, etc. you are contributing to global warming. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

It was created by Al Gore so he could rake in money from people who are afraid... In the 80's it was saving the trees, in the 90's it was the Ozone layer, in 2000 it was Global Warming, 2010 it was the Climate Change, 2020, Climate crisis.... ALL of their predictions failed

@@Anita-md9ze the planet was much hotter 5000 years ago than it is today, there was a period within the last 1800 years where the water rose over 2 meters. it's a Hoax, It always has been.

@@McIntoshYoga In America most people need to drive to have a job. If you don’t have a job, you’ll be homeless. Direct action must be taken from the top to reform society in terms of infrastructure, energy, work, etc.

As long as scientists pocket BILLIONS in climate research grants, you will get climate scare results

You must be aware that nature never follows a straight line, or maybe you never studied science. Weather and climate are not the same thing. You probably don't think nicotine is addictive either.

If you drive 100km and it takes 1hr, your average speed is 100km/h, even though your actual speed throughout the journey was rarely exactly 100km/h. Likewise, the global mean temperature is not the same as day to day temperature. You should look up “Signal to Noise” and how it effects climate data.

​@@clive373 You're a kid, so it's all right for you to not remember it. But normal adults remember that we've been told forever that new york would be underwater and that never happened. Fossil fuel consumption has no effect on the weather so just get over it.

@@alainportant6412 I'm 72, so I think we can safely say you are a moron.

Ok u never took 1 science class. We teach children that 1 year does not make a climate trend. That takes the average of 30 years. And I see the typical denier tactic of cherry picking. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and also a super El Nino. The year after, 2017 will almost certainly be cooler. Oh and since then, temps have continued to warm, so much so that over the last 12 months, they have been over 1.6C above the baseline. Your attempts at denial would embarrass a school child

Brad Flutey This video isn’t about proving climate change. There are already hundreds of videos on that already. This video is about understanding why nothing substantial is being done about it in regards to economic factors and the nature of profit maximisation. The big issue is that businesses and politicians don’t like negative economic growth which is what they fear will result from serious climate change policy. Basically, this video is trying to show that there can be a decent economy after serious changes just like there was after ending slavery.

If you are really asking for "evidence for climate change" in 2019, you are already showing your high level of ignorance. its been a thing for more than 40 years. how about you look it up in science books and journals. sigh

Well said, agree 100%

Reeno I do, the North Pole is gaining ice as well as the South Pole gaining ice. The Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland has been growing for the last 3 years. Something you would never understand, not reading an positive information about the environment for your non-factual text books.

exactly

Yet, you can't find a single incorrect statement he makes.

Amen

Yeah, greenhouse effect seems benign. Should rename it outhouse effect.

"I stink therefore I am" Rene Descartes has been often misquoted on this.

You might as well, because you obviously haven't bothered to read up on the science.

You obviously haven't been to Australia lately, or Africa, or California, or Greenland, or, ...

Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise Of Junk CO2 Science .

Nun, Gina12345 Take it up with NASA , it’s their paper .Next you’ll be telling me that oil is a fossil fuel.Leave the basic science books alone and read what the experts have to say.

@Nun, Gina12345 So burning coal is good then? Melting ice caps are good? Rising sea levels are good? So more CO2 in the atmosphere = prosperity? Let's live on Venus then! You are one of the prime examples of why natural selection needs to do its job properly.

​@@fancifulrat There's absolutely no consensus on the theory that oil is a fossil fuel. You kids should look up the "abiogenic petroleum origin" theory according to which oil doesn't come from fossils and thus is not sustainable. For all we know, oil reserves are actually infinite. There's no consensus on how it's created.

Excuse you. the right uses anger tactics. the left only seek to use that for actual good reasons.

@@iamhewhospeaks lol.

Anger promotes action. He was a film maker and understood that. I'm a psychologist and understand that. You are wrong.

@@denisdaly1708 in 30 years, no time for debate. hmmmm.

I find it telling that our government and its agencies want to protect us from climate changes (that, as you say are always changing) and will seemingly do anything necessary to convince us of it, but our government agencies do NOTHING to protect us from poisonous food additives and foods that give people diabetes and other diseases and conditions. If they care so much about our safety, wouldn't they want us protected from EVERYTHING?

You sound like someone who knows more than 99% of Climate Scientists.

You got that right.

He says at the very beginning that his purpose is to frighten you. This was 7 years. Half of Australia hadn’t burned down and Lake Mead was full and the western US wasn’t a tinder box. There is no propaganda here. It is “justifiable fear” as he calls it.

Lesson in truth whats better

But a few among the elite want to make a trillion-dollar business out of it by having control over the world population simultaneously. Don't forget that such treaties are followed by many other control mechanisms, too.

lantern bearer. Yes, and this time we're forcing it to become a lot warmer than it normally would be. Why is that so hard to understand?

@@solarpark The fact that they are the elite means that they already have a lot of control. The scam doesn't make any sense.

Thank you... hope your message will be read by many others... it deserves that.

Spot on. "Someone was right about X, therefore IM right about Y"

Seriously?! The entire piece gave example after example of how historically humans do not act on evidence. He does not have to present you with all the evidence for the climate emergency, that has been done over and over. His point was how if we don't act when presented with evidence. It was a call to action.

@@rogerm1343 that is a logical fallacy, and frankly you should be insulted that someone could say such things and expect you to believe it. Just because one may be a fact does not prove anything about another subject completely unrelated.

@@s00p3rmanyour comment makes no sense. And yes we are in a climate emergency. That is a fact with overwhelming evidence. I have been to green land and seen the ice sheet and it's exponential melting with my own eyes. I am well aware of all the facts. The talk in this video makes perfect sense.

@@rogerm1343 Greenland?!?! 2018/2019 according to science and the DMI, Greenland gained around 600 billion tons of fresh snow and lost around 100 billions tons so the net gain is around 500 billion tons. Just 4 days ago on July 3d 2019 east Holland had it's coldest July day since record began -1.6 degree celsius below zero, and in Germany today we still had top high temp. of 17 degrees Celsius, in Hannover, which is about 15 degrees BELOW average and the forecast for the whole next week sees an average high of 22 degrees. Since 2017 ocean levels dropped 2 mm!

Yup.

Time to be the change and future squillionaire by initiating the nuclear revolution.

Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium. Uses more of its original fissile material. Creates waste with significantly smaller half life's and can consume old radioactive waste material currently in storage. Biggest reason includes less risky process that leads to runaway reactors.

No. If you were a "concerned scientist and engineer " then you would know AGW & ACC are not the same thing, wouldn't you. Also, nuclear alone is not the answer, a combination of nuclear, solar and wind is,

@@22burst2020ddsspec The first thing you need to do is get all the godbotherers to accept that AGW & ACC are real because most deniers do so based on biblical literalism. Next you have to get these same godbotherers to stop voting for their Orange God Emperor, "Trump Digs Coal". Fun Fact. The PRC is the world leader in R&D and implementation of nuclear, solar and wind energy. Fun Fact. Calling uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars is not making insults it is telling the truth. Deal with it.

RE: "if we continue to worship at the altar of Profit then we are surely doomed." Viva Castro, Viva Mao, Viva Hitler, Viva Stalin...down with profits....All humans are equal, some humans are more equal than others From Hltler's NAZI platform, not at all different from today's Democrats. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand: Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Spoken like a true NATIONAL SOCIALIST, not unlike today's Democrats - as you said - in many ways, though I did spot a few. A very interesting post and timely, too, considering what happened the last 8 years and the violent, brown-shirt (claiming to be anti-fascist while engaging in the worst fascist tactics) reaction of the losers of the last election.

Bob Roberts so your argument is that saying the worship of money will doom us is a lot like what the Nazis thought - hmmmm. Did you know that Jesus Christ said things that were very similar to this? Do you think Jesus Christ was a Nazi, Bob?

Stephen Nielsen Some do not get things like Paris Accord is about money and redistribution of wealth. Can't just throw money at it and the issue is fixed.

Daniel C some people are mindless. They don't read a single sentence within agreement, but still fully condemn the agreement only because they were told to do so by someone else.

Go on, tell us the 'truth' about how much the temp has warmed over the last 2 decades and while you're at it, give up the low down on the medieval warming period.

Dude I feel exactly the same way but only you're under the spell and all of those like you are part of some new cult religion.

Name one!

Are not the (tobacco-industry-grade) denialists who demand the prioritized indulgence of their narcissistic priviledged entitled greedy attitudes just as vitriolically opposed to competently dealing with pollution ( and ecological degradation, and deforestation....) as they are to any form of mitigation of climate disruption ? What personal benefit do you derive from your facile apologism?

Give me three recognized scientists or professionals, who question climate change with legitimate facts. I would really like to know they are because I would read their material or listen to their presentations.

@@dalelehar7335 the climate is always changing! To do with the sun a nd earth orbits as proved by Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920's

@@kurtklingbeil speak english

Why are the left promoting some big captialistic multinational companies but not all ?

No, he just showed you a book, that destroys the common deniers claims that 50 years ago something else was predicted

If you tell a big enough lie often enough some people will start to believe it.

GoodTimeTraveler or dr Patrick Moore

GoodTimeTraveller They daren't bring on Lord Moncton nor Peers Corbyn because they would be saying things that TEDx doesn't want to be passed on to the Globally Hoaxed.

@@MauriatOttolink When has Lord Monckton done anything at all that would qualify him to give a TED talk?

@@ilikethisnamebetter What ever it is, those biased and loaded Leftie pseudo, self-appointed intellectuals at TT must have had their reasons! This is so far back that I need to go back and find what the blazes I said. However I would reverse the question and ask ''what does TED talks have to qualify them to publish what he says."" I have since, slowly become aware that TED Talks are a bunch of Left wing propagandists on whom I wouldn't waste an overfull, painfully bursting bladder should I encountered them burning to the ground. If I were standing on a railway line (railroad track) and somebody from TED Talks shouted "Look out! There's a train coming," I'd write off immediately to the railroad company for a timetable to check! Hmm.. That rather puts your flimsy question into perspective...don't it just?

@@MauriatOttolink Please stand on a railway line and wait. You have nothing to offer the world.

@Tyler Stearns i reckon the real problem is that Mark is not a sheeple. His statement is actually correct. The so called human impacts are easily deniable. Try reading history to see the real facts. Check out Tony Heller, among others, on youtube and you will see the truth.

@Tyler Stearns Mark is correct. Lets shut down the oceans and plug up all the volcanoes. They produce more co2 than anything else on the planet. Anyone who thinks humans can change the climate is delusional. Extinction is natural

@@seancassidy4812 You suggest reading the real facts, and then go on and make a ridiculous statement like plugging up all the volcanoes, and shutting down all the oceans. Oceans and volcanoes are not man made, and the C02 emanating from them is not man induced. Nature over millennia has adjusted conditions on this planet so that man can survive. Humans have been the cause of excessive Co2 for at least three decades, to a point it is interfering with the normal order of things. Try putting too much of a good thing into a fishbowl and see what happens to the fish.

@@twalgoolan4249 Hiya T. thank you for your reply. I would like to know where all the extra co2 is coming from, given that there is only so much co2 available on the planet. No one is making new co2. Nature has not done anything just so that mankind can survive. Nature does not love humanity. All gasses are actually recycled. For instance, it is known that millions of years ago, the concentrations of oxygen were far higher than today, which resulted in animals and even insects being much larger, followed by climatic events which wiped out life to a great extent. Subsequent to these events, the levels of gasses were altered, resulting in different lifeforms which were adapted to exist in those environments. So, given that plants require co2 to exist and the fact that plants exposed to large doses of co2 will actually increase in size massively compared to those plants receiving less co2, could you please explain why we are not completely surrounded by greenery? Incidentally to this, I want you to know that I do believe that the planet has been damaged by mankind, but co2 is only the latest scapegoat, not the problem. Our biggest problem is physical pollution and waste. Most of the figures that are being bandied about come from computer modelling, based on equations that can be made to fit. There are historic records that show that nothing is actually any different from 100 years ago. The newspaper reports from around the world that describe events with recorded weather that show this. In the 1970s and 1980s, people were saying that we would be in an ice age by the year 2020. These articles are easily found in newspaper archives. There are loads of them from the USA at that time. Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see and you may find some truth. If you put me in your fish bowl what will happen is that I will probably eat your fish. (sorry mate, i couldn't resist the last bit) Peace to you.

@@twalgoolan4249 hot off the press T, on youtube, USA Today Grants The Arctic A 20 Year Reprieve. Definitely worth a look. It's Tony Heller who is worth a look because he actually searches for the facts, which is what all people should do when faced with any situation. Please understand, I am not attacking anyone when I make my statements. Nor, do I want to upset anybody. I just want everyone to know the truth. My main reasons for doubt are based on weather records that one of my friends has taken himself in his fishing diaries which go back almost 40 years. He is extremely precise about everything. We have learned a lot from reading similar diaries from history, which is where the idea came from. Tony Heller is definitely worth a look. You will see that climate is cyclical in nature and you will recognise that billions are being funneled into creating equations that are fit for the purpose of garnering more billions. A massive racket, just like wars. Man cannot adjust nature, but can adapt to changes in nature, as they always have.

That means we have to drastically cut down on our own emissions. A US citizen is responsible for 200 times the emissions of a Congolese. Beside, we are liable for the harm global warming causes to them. Because, those most affected are those who least contributed to it. In third world countries, global warming is killing people already today. The Philippines are annually devastated by superstorms now, in Southern Africa, 45 million in Zambia and Zimbabwe are currently experiencing the drought of the century. In South Asia, 1.5 billion are affected by the receding Himalayan glaciers. Global warming is undoing every bit of progress development aid ever achieved.

@@jochannan7379 those numbers you cited are nonsense. Someone told you those numbers without backing them up. Fossil fuels are helping those people. Lifting them out of poverty. Cleansing their water and safely heating their food.

You don't actually care about these people you pretend to, it's all about maintaining your greedy lifestyle, duh!

"Have you tried not being poor?"

toddness. Those people you're concerned about are already victims of fossil fuels.

*knock knock* nfts would like a world…earth 2 would like a word

exactly

Precisely!

Predictions that have come true: Global temperatures will continue to rise. Oceans will acidify. Many species will start to die off. Weather will become more extreme .... need I go on?

James Davis true

James Davis I think so, is to do something that is injustice. Power of the people our voice. When we stop. Everything stop.

Unfortunate that you can't make those very clear connections...perhaps that is why you don't understand science.

James Davis - well it would be quite hard to use future events wouldn't it! You posted your comment on his 2014 presentation in 2020. Do you not think that in those six years there have been many examples of the impact of a changing climate? One that springs to mind is the vast bush fires in South Eastern Australia.

I noticed that too. I also noted the attempts to maniplate the viewer. For example, the sound played at key times for the purpose of word association; the many, many slogans (some of which had their true meanings twisted); the image of someone standing with smoke photoshopped in, at the exact moment he said "this is not a sustainable future"; and the lack of ANY scientific evidence whatsoever. If you want to convince me of a theory, I suggest using facts and evidence, not cheap trickery. If I am to reach ANY conclusion from this video it is that this man (like many orhers) is using the climate "crisis" as a cover for his anti-capitalism.

E chi dice che il loro clima era corretto mentre il nostre é sbagliato?

Try ingesting 0.04% of your body weight in a powerful poison and see what effect it has. A small percentage doens't mean a small impact. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 330 PPM to 415 since 1985. Just 1000 PPM has been shown to have significant negative effects on cognitive abilities, and rising outside levels will also increase the CO2 levels inside buildings which already commonly reach such levels.

@@MusaM8 .......... Go check the ice cores ......... CO2 has been as high as 8,000PPM

@@budbud2509 You will not find times in the ice cores when the CO2 content was over 280 ppm. They only go back about a million years. When CO2 levels were that high the only life on the planet was one-cell creatures that lived in the oceans and ate CO2 to produce O2. The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is not relevant, it's the number of CO molecules between the surface and space (the partial pressure - see the fundamental gas laws).

Do YOU know that a rise from 0.01 percent co2 concentration to 0.03 percent is a 200 percent INCREASE? Maybe leave the science stuff to the scientists.

Did you just say there we no slaves in UK. Im guessing you did HW by now.

i think u might mean the weather

Seems to work where money, vested interests and willful ignorance is concerned

bob hope. Like most of the people commenting here.

the earth survived, how about the dinos or the plants😂

The earth will survive, maybe not humans tho

During the LIA (1350-1850), we had the renaissance, the enlightenment, and the industrial revolution. Necessity is the mother of invention.

@@drkstrong The LIA wasn't a global event. Places such as Florence, Italy were not affected.

@@bassmaster1953 The LIA was at least an Atlantic Basin phenomenon which would affect Florence. There are a few mountain glaciers around the Mediterranean Sea which apparently grew during the LIA period (Hughes et al. 2014).

Love

that’s a weird attitude : so you don’t listen to a word your doctor says presumably. If he doesn’t know everything about the human body.

Mykola Kindrat you must be into buy and lease back and tax avoidance

The warming is not going to stop. The sun warms the oceans and the air it is not going to stop.

there have been two temperature spikes similar to today's in the past 400,000 years. Both times the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose along with the increase in temperature (direct effect of the warming) then fell off much slower than the temperature, which dropped rapidly. (Ice Core Project data and tree ring studies.) There's really no evidence that this will not be the same way. Hint -- look into how carbon dioxide is affected by radiation and specifically which frequencies of radiation cause any warming. Then you will not be afraid. Sorry you can no longer find very many scientific papers on google search anymore -- you'll have to dig to discover what you should know

The earth is alive. It is a living organism made up on interconnected ecosystems that all work together to create and sustain life. When your body temperature raises 2 degrees, you have a fever. When it raises 5 youre in a coma. Any higher and you’re dead. That’s what’s happening to the life on this planet. It’s too hot, and the forms of live that evolved to live in a cold, low carbon environment are dying off in droves. We evolved to thrive in the last ice age. To change that is to change our chance at survival.

@@roberthollandsworth1809 Are you referring to the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle?

iviewthetube I’m not that familiar with that theory but my understanding is that it’s similar to our scientific understanding of how earths life works.

thank you!!

😄😄

Can understand some words, but sentences... Oh wait, who is still interested in the meaning of a full sentence TL/dnr I rather not know

Great so to fight climate change all we need to do is end human and corporate greed in time before the North Pole melts. 4 years should be plenty of time.

@@roberthollandsworth1809 There's plenty of money to be made from solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc., etc.

ilikethisnamebetter I don’t care about continuing the planet eating economic machine we have built. There is a 0% chance humans become a positive influence or presence on this planet. Whether we have solar panels or windmills won’t stop Indonesia from burning the Borneo rainforest to grow palm oil. It won’t stop Brazil from burning the Amazon for soy and cattle. It won’t stop Congo from burning their rainforest to grow food. When I tell you the arctic ice was no thicker than 1.5 meters during the September minimum this year, what does that mean to you? Because to me it spells global disaster when the jet stream shifts to center around the remaining ice on Greenland in a few years. Our ability to grow food in mass quantities is over. Crop production in the US was 90% 2 years ago. It’s down to 55% this year because of all the flooding and non stop rain, drought, and flood again. Everything they said would happen has happened and it’s worse than we could have imagined.

@@roberthollandsworth1809 If it won't help then everyone should carry on doing exactly what they want to. Is that what you are advocating?

ilikethisnamebetter it’s not an ideal situation but we’re about 50 years past all the geologic markers for runaway climate change. It’s here with a vengeance, and here we are almost in the year 2020 with people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Xinping running their countries with the intention of setting the planet on fire of it means profits and GDP. I say we live our lives the best we can. There is no stopping the 6th mass extinction, there is no stopping the 8 degrees of warming we could see in a century. The worst predictions 30 years ago didn’t even come close to the reality of our situation. I’m just trying to live my life as honest as I can, and that means accepting that human civilization is currently collapsing all around us. There’s also zero technology available to us that can cool the planet. Our best hope is to reduce our carbon emissions, there is no such thing as sequestering warmth. The laws of thermodynamics are not on our side.

He explains at the beginning of the talk why he is knowledgeable on the subject

And neither are you. And I'm guessing that you don't believe what climate scientists say. Do you?

Yes, sir. I believe the verdict is still out on the subject.History is a great teacher of man's follies, no doubt. I did listen to what he had to say here in this video. I am a man of the scientific principles. I believe that more needs to be done in the observation and science on the matter. I would really love to find more science on the subject, especially with the science of the SUN on the climate change subject. In my opinion there is a great deal of hubris on both sides of climate change. What can man do IF in fact we are facing a serious climate change situation? Again, especially IF the SUN plays any part in this equation. Yes, I understand CO2 in the atmosphere. Who’s to say that the CO2 levels are bad or good? What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? A more serious question might be what is the SUN doing? Is it cooling, expanding, spotting, ect. What really could we do about all this and when.Yes, I also believe the oil/coal and gas are limited resources and that using ALL of them in a relative short period is not a good thing. But again, I have to ask myself what can man do? I’m trying to think outside the box here. I’ve seen some outrageous ideals long ago on the subject. For example, “growing algae in the desert” for Bio fuel. Not only does this reverse CO2 in the atmosphere but also produces fuel for cars. What is a smart thing both left and right can agree on? How can we balance curbing our appetite for cheap fuel, EPA clean power plans, and NOT repeating error like Solyndra. I hope both sides of the climate change debate can agree to work together and temper everything with a bit of common sense and science.

If you're genuinely interested and not just concern trolling go to skepticalscience.com

So, I go to your site mentioned above and watch the entire video called: “Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 6”. Thank you by the way, I’ll keep an eye on that site above. I have two separate takeaways, as my first impressions of this site. Please read BOTH below. First, here is my problem. In the first few moments in the video, I hear that “flood insurance in Minnesota tripled over the last 20 years”. So it gets me thinking and searching the internet for more information. For example, I’m asking myself, what has the population done over the past 20 years? What has the median home values in Minnesota for past 20 years? Both are easily up. I also see lakeshore properties are increasing. So I decide there are no clear irrefutable facts here. The climate change folks need to provide better science in general here. The issue comes across as how someone feels about it. We need more FACTS. But wait there is more… I did learn about “urban heat islands” also in this video. I’m reading the wiki on “urban heat islands” and doing more studying here. This “urban heat islands” is one I’ve not heard anything about. I have often felt the effects of it myself but it really never registered as anything of a concern. It makes clear sense to me and has been studied since the 1800’s I read. Wow, now there is some science and “green” in that “urban heat islands” that I could easily get behind and support. This is the type of information we need more of. Thanks again. I’ve become interested lately over this topic because of the President-elect Trump 2016 winning. Trump recently meet with Al Gore. I strongly despise Al Gore. I do like Trump. I also like that Trump is listening to Al Gore. I sincerely hope that President Trump finds the correct agenda for Climate Change or green initiatives. I also hope that the democrats give Trump a chance and little room to decide priorities.

And the oil companies do? LoL

Michaels is not a Nobel Prize winner. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel prize in 2007. Michaels was not a member of the IPCC but sent in review comments on that report. I sent in review comments on that report - as anyone can. Does that make me a Nobel prize winner - No! Michaels is a member of an ultra right-wing think tank that is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

As opposed to siding with corrupted data from the IPCC commissioned by governments? It's like Climategate never happened.

What do you do when big corporations are diving onto the green bandwagon , and advocating against climate change?

Cool! Because it will happen a lot!

John Brookes I wonder how it felt being threatened to be burnt alive !

Rodrigo Pereira WTF?

I try to be a nice guy despite being wrong on everything.

lol, you should ask how much money a scientist gets from the Koch charity foundation or similar "charity" foundations. Government money is innocuous compared to that.

Absolutely

He gets nothing. You clearly don't know who he is. He us just a misguided old man. He didn't say what he thinks we should do, he just thinks something should be done.

80% of humanities cities are on the coast... Which will be a problem... As your new normal will have significantly higher sea levels

You can only have them with "fossil fuels" otherwise its Mogadishu for you.

Chill Hammer Climate change isn't caused by humans. However I agree that we really do need to stop polluting our ecosystem because that has a very immediate and negative impact on plant and animal life including *OUR OWN LIVES.* That said how are so many people conflating Global Warming™/climate change with overfishing, poaching and direct habitat destruction (i.e. deforestation). These things aren't caused by the passive and ever climbing amount of CO2 emissions; they're caused by direct human interactions, engagements and wasteful practices with regards to the environment and it's inhabitants. Is that so hard to understand? And why the *FUCK* are people taking a damn filmmakers word as gospel? You know what that bit is just too far beyond explanation. [minor corrections]

VariantAEC ... filmmakers can play a vital role in making the changes we both discussed. While we don't have to agree with their every word, they can still be an instrument of spreading awareness. Industry will not make these changes and governments won't write legislation for it but they sure will impose taxes related to the subject. We all (as humans) need to come together and understand that this topic should be near the top of the list. There are definitive solutions to solving these problems and while they will be difficult, they'll also be necessary for our species survival.

Chill Hammer Maybe this filmmaker should focus on real issues related to the environment then? I mean if he's serious why not showcase the harm poaching and overfishing and deforestation does? Instead he's preaching the evils of exhaling (which all living animals do to my knowledge)!

VariantAEC ... I agree. That's what my original comment addressed. Nobody looks at the root cause instead they all just beat around the bush like a bunch of idiots.

I agree, we shouldn't take a damn filmmakers word as gospel. That's because he is not a climate scientist. For that matter, neither are you. So why should I take a damn youtube commentor's word as gospel. "Climate change isn't caused by humans." Because? Because you say so? What do climate scientist say in their publicly available published research? Do their conclusions match what this damn film maker is saying?

The best speakers always make the best conmen.

You're right. With communism it wouldn't be 1% holding most of the money, it would be .0001% instead. It wouldn't be a thousand major corporations competing, it would just one monopoly. Brilliant solution.

John, I agree!

If you really want to stop climate change, assuming "human activity" is the cause, then ban all personal vehicles (cars, trucks, minivans,) immediately. Especially superfluous polluters such as power boats, recreational vehicles, lawn mowers, outdoor gas patio heaters, leaf blowers, etc. Who's ready to give up their car for the sake of the planet? This is something YOU CAN do today if you are really willing to back up your rhetoric.

you got to be kidding

it reminded me of a hs speech class argument.

🤣

The Earth as a hole could withstand a lot of things. So could we. That doesn't mean they won't cause damages and deaths.

Well said. In this case politicians like Trump are using the threat of climate change activists taking away your freedom to scare and alarm you. Trump might save you from crazy climate changers but you won't have a liveable planet to enjoy your freedom on. Wake up!

AGW & ACC are real. Grow up.

But you are not intelligent enough to understand the DATA. Would you also argue that you could perform a Heart surgery?

97% of government funded scientists...

You need to ask yourself why there is a consensus. Perhaps it is because there is overwhelming evidence of r it and no other viable explanation. That is where we are in the scientific debate - basically game over unless someone can come up with an entirely new theory that explains the rising temperatures and why the GHGs/aerosols are not having the effect that they should be.

''TedTalks'' is like the CIA'S palygorund,just a bunch of pointless weirdos and perverts wh ohave noauthority, and are servents of a very complicated,business-criminal enterprise..the TePresenters cannot say much of anything here..

Gemeral dis Just a bit too intellectual for you, are they? I can tell, by the utterly bollocks response you posted.

***** Hey aren't you late for the liars convention? Bullshit can't hide because it smells so bad. kinda like a trollfart...or your words..

***** Yes, Putnam's a first class logician: Slavery is bad, cigarettes are bad, seat belts are good...... therefore, global warming isn't a hoax. [from Jennifer Jones below] Two of many points: - CO2 isn't pollution. It's in our lungs, from the day we are born till the day we die, in a concentration 400 times the ppm in the atmosphere. - Millions, every day, consume carbonated drinks that contain more CO2 than would the ocean under an atmosphere of pure CO2.

Wow...the sheer lack of understanding of CO2 science in this previous comment is AWE-INSPIRINGLY evident! You take a real fact--our exhalations are ~100 times as rich in CO@ as the ambient air--and then falsely extrapolate an utter idiocy from that...wow.

hyde1886 nope, 16 mins of emotive waffle, no substance.

+Gerry Abbett Thank you Gerry, for taking the time to study the topic and come to your own conclusions. We need more people like you who can objectively look at all the evidence, pro and con, (like a REAL scientist) and come up adult ideas and conclusions. Unfortunately, science has been hijacked by political extremists and global warming fanatics, which is just a sorry sight to see. They would all make horrible scientists. Goons for the NWO.

Steve Young LOL NWO..... you nutters

+Gerry Abbett Climate change may be real, but man made climate change is fake and a global conspiracy. A secret organization is paying 97% of the physicists and climate scientist to claim that it is real. Only the remaining 3% scientist with true moral integrity are telling the correct facts. Even NASA is bought and paid for by the Democratic party in USA. They may cut NASA's annual budget on paper, but all NASA scientists are getting paid handsomely to keep up this charade.

Neighborhood Guy you must be kidding

Aanthanur DC I am not. This is the hard truth. NASA and scientists (not associated with oil and gas industry) are corrupting our great nation with lies and unverified theories. Until it has become a law, I would not accept. For example, Einstein only gave a theory of gravity, but Newton gave a law of gravitation.

Hypocrisy is rampant

Well like use renewable and nuclear energy then. No one wants to give up the good stuff I agree.

Don Anderson. You bet? You mean you don't know? It's good that you highlight the problem though. Our dependence on fossil fuels is the problem, which is why we need to turn to alternatives asap.

@@markc7955 No one is able to because the system is geared to using fossil fuels.

@@zeolitequeen You want we should just ignore the science? What that please you?

Kenneth Edwards So you would chose to be ignorant and curse your child or your child's child to be cursed to drowning cities, world migration all, out war of land and possibly the end of civilization. Sir, there is a reason Ignorance is referred to as a bitter, arrogant and selfish term. After all, better to live for something than die for nothing. Also consider that this is the world you're talking, think, maybe your all the people you look up to and care about could die because of your and our actions. And before you say, I can't make a difference. Know that each year, you could save up 6 tons in carbon waste only by doing recommended things to fight climate change. And when you say, living in the moment, know that right now climate change is the moment. There are other things that could end us but this above all is the most immanent. Please consider what consequences you make before you take ignorance.

Not at all, King, we should absolutely do what we can to serve the greater good, but we have to understand the dark side of human nature as well, and not pretend that all is well when it is not, admit to our own wrongness. True, ignorance is not innocence. That said, you or I can only take personal responsibility, and for our direct relationships. We cannot do what is not in our power. That's a big problem, people try to solve problems from the periphery in, while it should be the other way around. Wake up, become aware, and you'll know what is best and what is possible.

I see...