@Father Dougal Yes, the last surviving hominid.

The congress should pass a law forcing the planet to do it.

This is really the core of the problem, even amongst non religious people, there is this concept that Earth is made for us so everything will probably be alright.

Pretty much the message that every spiritual person I have spoken to has said.. Don't worry, earth will be fine.. Humans, not so sure about them

@@eddieking2976 Does that mean that we are under no obligation to ensure its survival? And the chimps, gorillas and orangutan might disagree with you.

You're the 3rd highest comment as of now :D

Reverse psychology

@@vask5500 Well would you look at that! Haha

Only science can save us, trees are not enough.

@@gullintanni Unfortunately it is science and technology that mostly got us into the position we are today.

@@dingodazz3724 Is it really or is it capitalism? It is up to us to say is this good or bad for us. Capitalism is the driving force in my opinion and science is just a tool for good or bad. In the end we need science to fix this as most people care more about convenience now than the future survival of humanity.

@Bill Fauber Thanks for the educational references, but I already believe / knew that climate change is a natural cycle. However nowhere in history has the amount of pollutants that are currently in our waters (sea & fresh) and air been at such a rapid increase, and if you think that none of that has anything to do with what us humans are doing then you have your head in the sand. I didn't read in any of those references (or see in this video) where it indicated that mother nature was at fault for putting plastic bags and the like in the oceans....

@@gullintanni Agreed that Science can be used both ways (and often is), but as we don't even know what is at the bottom of the ocean I can't see science fixing a whole planet issue anytime soon - there is more money spent (and probably more people) on google / mobile phone / internet, etc Research & Development than anything related to climate change. I don't really care for this "capitalism" or anything else stuff, I believe 99% of governments are shit and liars and are pushing their own wheelbarrows of agendas - I just research facts and follow those outcomes. Either way I don't think science has a magic pill. Also agree most people are all about here and now and what someone can do for them to make their life easier, although I feel that is slowly (very slowly) starting to change.

That means a lot, thanks!

Sretnuh he's almost like Vsauce but you don't end the video even more confused than before

Neutral? Idk about that? Back again? Even less so. Look at how he reacts to some gas spill then he claims that humans are "adaptable." "We were forged during an ice age." Yeah that doesnt apply to the individual. An individual is having a crisis not about climate change but about these issues affecting their ability to care for themselves and loved ones. They see their industry being forced to shut down. This is anything but neutral.

srentnuh, you have a good reason to be humble...

@@joescott you deserve that , sir

Yeah... Joe didn't take a side or convey his opinion on the topic at all .

The greenhouse effect is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Letters from Japan no he didn't. He just painted his picture and he's wrong. The most fair point he made was its been melting sense the agricultural age. He got real jackass real fast

Alexander Uribe Yeah he is so wrong that all historical and scientific evidence points in his favor. I think you are the one with the incorrect narrative.

Equation please .

Sure, but that's still WAY more efficient and less polluting than spewing emissions the little engine inside. BTW whose emissions sits and lingers in clouds across your city and highways instead of being dispersed hundreds of feet up and miles away from you. The impacts of electric cars on air quality are underappreciated.

Green after 130000 km Pffff

How much coal do we burn to charge our electric cars? ... _walking_ is emissions free, and we all could lose a little weight ... we can't maintain our fossil-fuel-intensive lifestyles without intensely burning fossil fuels ... we're not going to cut our meat consumption in half, and our great-great-grandchildren will pay the price ...

How much do electric cars cost? Lots. How much does it cost to replace the batteries. Very lots! When they reach the end of their life how much do they cost to dispose of...? Very, very, lots. In answer to G Wills below, Generating a given amount of energy whether by a power-plant or an engine will 'cost' the same amount of carbon. Whether you generate that electrical energy and use it to power the car or generate the power in the car itself costs the same. You think it's better to push the emissions high up and far away? It's still in the atmosphere though isn't it?

@@gwills9337 what about I-squared R losses?

Every form of energy we have including nuclear is just incredibly inefficient solar. There's a reason we classify hypothetical advanced civilizations by how well and how directly they're able to harness solar energy. Sorry but you nuke heads are thinking like cave men, still just burning by products of actual energy sources.

Bullshit nuclear power is a major polluting poison ,they have no where to put the shit that's left over ,

Yess! Why does everyone ignore that one?

Well, he talked about nuclear fusion not fission @DoctorDistracto Nuclear fission, although somewhat based on the sun doesn't come from sunlight but from the stelar nucleosinthesis of previous stars or in some very specific cases from the sun, that said the energy only goes to one intermediary, the heated water. Even solar energy needs to go trough the photoeletric effect wich is not 100% efficient. @Kowhai Jack The Fission process with currently available materials does produce trash, even if the new nuclear fission with thorium and/or fusion technologies never come nuclear energy would be much safer to use since the waste is treated and stored deep underground were it is generaly safe, the waste regarding thermoeletric energy goes directly to the atmosphere not only incressing global warming but putting at risk the life on millions

@@doctordistracto8390 it's about power density as well. Nuclear fission can produce much more energy with a small amount of space. Now nuclear waste is a problem but there are new generation plants that are designed to operate on nuclear waste. Check out Terrapower.

And not say I paid to generate co2 from my plane.

And monthly energy bills.

Says the politicians who fly over in their private jets to enlighten us with their thoughts on global warming

The following isn't an IQ test, it's a "basic common sense" test. It's just a hair's breadth above an "ability to tie your own shoes" test. Person A: Guys, I think we're too heavy for this elevator! Person B: Shut up, fatso! Loose some weight, and they you can tell us about being too heavy! So, who's the idiot in that exchange? If you answered "person B", congratulations. You're not a complete moron. If you answered "person A", my condolences to your loved ones. The one bright spot is that, with brain death, there's an opportunity to see some good come of it, by allowing organ harvest.

Wouldn't their drastic solutions affect them as well. They are calling for rational solutions. I study people like you. I'm always fascinated by deniers, or status quo advocates.

Aaron Schwartz, It's a political issue.

@@boogathon why do you say that. I only believe it is politicized because we have not recognized that we are harming the earth since the idea really started to take shape in the 70's when Nixon founded the EPA and Congress passed laws like Right to Know and the Superfund. This isn't something the government should debate whether they step in on, sensible legislation to bring us into a sustainable future should be one of the federal governemnt's top priorities. But they prefer to talk about whether or not we should ask if someone is a citizen on the census

@@aaronschwartz7396 This is how the world ends.

Most people {choose to ignore / never heard of } almost { any issue at all }. Science is about facts. Facts do not care about consensus. Consensus does not reveal facts (but can sometimes point in the general direction of a hidden fact).

You can do more: don't fly at all 🙂 apart from that you're doing great...keep up the good work!

And for every person who sacrifices for the misguided notion of saving the future of humanity, there are millions who don't even believe there is a problem and will gladly use the portion that they sacrificed. For instance, as the US shuts down coal-fired power plants, China builds new ones as quickly as they can. And while American progressives give up their cars, billions of people in developing countries with no concept of reducing CO2 emissions look forward to owning their first car, which will certainly be powered by an interal combustion engine.

Just to clarify: We should try to save the earth, not for the earth, but for us! So we can keep living on it...!

@@granadakimj The earth is doing just fine, with or without us. The central problem is the "Big Lie" that's being told about "dangerous global warming" by the government and it's pet media. Listen up, please: *_There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures._* Everything we observe now has also happened before CO2 began to rise - and to a much greater degree. Let's pretend you're a rational, unbiased observer of this 'climate crisis.' You look at all empirical (real world) evidence, you look at all observations, and you see that there's nothing unusual or unprecedented happening

@@boogathon give me some statistics and evidence as extensive and proven as the evidence for man made climate change and that could be considered. By only looking at for example the gray glacier in southern Chile you can see that in 2 generations the glacial ice has retreated by almost 1.5 kilometers and the melting is being accelerated by the rising yearly temperature average. Here in Finland where i live the slowing down of the gulf stream is already causing much colder winters and the summers are stormier and warmer than before. Finland too is loosing ice but in form of frozen bogs that never before thawed in the summer. So you give me evidence and I will consider as I hope you consider mine.

@@boogathon As someone who has seen the data, you can notice that there is a sharp spike in CO2 levels and global temperatures directly associated with anthroprogenic carbon emissions and this spike is directly related to industrialization. In fact we can go into even more detail using Ice core measurements and we can trace pollutants far back in to the past identifying ancient volcanic eruptions but also human development of Metallurgy various pulses of the industrial revolution human deforestation and environmental degradation all of them are recorded in the ice at Antarctica carrying back to the start of the last Ice age. The last time there has been this amount of carbon in the atmosphere was over 3 million years ago or I should say was since we have passed multiple max records core carbon dioxide and if you look at fine detail you can see that the records for the warmest years have been broken again and again with far greater frequency with this year being no different. In fact when we look at progressively older natural records of the climate verifying based off regions of overlap for different methods we can see a record of the global average climate back to the Jurassic using sea floor and we can see back into the late Precambrian by studying continental sediment depositions. Looking as this all see a stark and worrying trend directly relating ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere which can be compared to the fossil record. Every time there is a significant change in CO2 levels there is a major extinction event in the Earth's geologic record and each of these previous CO2 spikes has been directly correlated with a type of volcanism humans have never witnessed Flood Basalt Eruptions that span across vast swaths of the Earths surface known as Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs). These events released large amounts of CO2 over millions to thousands of years however. On the other hand in only a century we have reached similar jumps of Carbon as seen during Flood Basalt Eruptions in other words this type of change has almost never occurred anywhere near as fast before, (there are two possible exceptions we can use for comparison both of which ought to give every reason to worry) and yet still have produced catastrophic effects for life on Earth. These two exceptions where there was a rapid and sudden change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere are around 252 million years ago and 66 million years ago. Both of thsoe dates should sound familiar as they are two of the worst extinctions in the fossil record being so significant that they serve as dividing lines between geological Eras. The older of the two is linked to the Siberian Traps LIP however it was not just that no the real problem is revealed in looking what is not in the ground in Siberia but almost everywhere else, coal. As the Siberian traps erupted eventually so much magma rose to thee surface forming a sea of lava that it blocked up the path that no more material could reach the surface resulting in the still rising magma traveling laterally under the solidified basalt above melting through the vast Carboniferous era coal deposits until it reached the edges of the provinces releasing the vast amount of carbon the lava had burrowed through all at once. We can tell this happened because we see the same chemical signatures in ancient rocks as we find in the soot collected from smoke stacks burning Siberian Carboniferous coal a chemical and isotopic match. From the fossil record we can see this resulted in 5 degrees of warming soon followed by another 10 as the methane hydrates and frozen permafrost occurred rapidly nearly wiping out all complex life on the planet earning it the title "the Great Dying". The second was far more recent 66 million years ago and the only major extinction event linked to an asteroid impact. Core sampling of the Chicxulub Impact crater reveals that where the impact hit was extremely important since the asteroid hit into the continental shelf and the rich off shore petroleum deposits that would have been contained within the ground. It has also been shown recently to have drastically scaled up the activity of the Deccan traps turning a minor LIP event into a cataclysmic scale Eruption comparable to the Siberian Traps Eruption. (Dating has shown that 75% of the total erupted lava from the end Cretaceous extinction occurred at least a thousand years after the Impact that had occurred on the opposite side of the planet. Once again most life including all nonavian dinosaurs all Pterosaurs almost all giant marine reptiles and nearly all mammals. The evidence is very sound about as conclusive if not more than evidence for gravity if you want to live in the propaganda lies of the fossil fuel industry be my guest but don't spread such information

Well maybe without you.

Humans are the ones who are fucked

1or 2 degrees over a few centuries? Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I can't get a hotel room to a temperature that stable for a few hours! -Dennis Miller

@@root1657 Much of the temperature rise claims are fraudulent or misrepresented. Check out some of Tony Heller's vids on this issue. CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas, even Methane at 20x stronger absorber is very poor greenhouse gas. Theory requires the CO2/Mrthane to be amplified by water vapour which is a stronger greenhouse gas. Only water vapour causes rain, greening and clouds that reflect infrared. The 2F temp rise is highly selective and only achieved by ignoring previous higher temperatures.

@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs yep, right there with you... Note I was quoting a super sarcasm loaded joke by a comedian that also thinks even if it were 2 degrees, the hype is, well, over hyped...

@Arkady So you find that Heller uncovering fraudulently manipulated and misrepresented temperature data hilarious? Did you laugh at the Mann Hockey stick fraud as well?

@@GriuGriu64 you do know that fusion is still nuclear, right? ;)

@@GriuGriu64 i dont know how old you are, but i remember ppl getting told fuel runs out before year 2000.. sure, fossile fuels cant be infinite, but you should take those "price-upping the end is near" news that pop up every few years a bit more sceptic.

@@GriuGriu64 im a long term defendee of nuclear energy myself. Fusion prefered. But i'd have liked to seen more research towards thorium/liquid salt reactors aswell. But that collided with military and economic interests, too. Now its hard to tell what makes most sense, since fusion seems to make good progress lately.

@@dadrising6464 We have passed peak oil, so oil prices are heading up until it is too expensive for regular citizens. We need to develop safe nuclear for the future anyways.

But butt its sCarRy

The +4 degree scenario would wipe out more than half’of the human population. We’re talking billions of death. And that *could* happen by 2100 so yeah, much MUCH faster (DOOMSDAY Scenarios are at +5 to +8 very unlikely but not totally impossible with the dreaded Loops he mentions in the video some of which are in reality unpredictable and could be much more catastrophic than anticipated. Such as melting Permafrost and death of Corals in the oceans everywhere)

Shhhh. You're not supposed to ask that question.

Now compare that to ICE vehicles. How much energy was put into making ICE vehicles but also continue to spew exhaust even after creating an ICE vehicle. Once an electric car is made it will have less pollution once driven. It is a start and a reduction to pollution. Sometimes you have to think beyond the 1D.

@@kongvue5160 those Studies have already been conducted. When everything is taken into consideration the electric vehicle is about the same as the internal combustion engine vehicle

Elecyric cars are a bigger pollutant than petrol cars

@@uluwatu3118 I was literally thinking the same thing right before I read your comment.

I did my best. :)

Its biased

@@gabrielpauna62 _VERY_ biased. I blame our gov't dot-EDU factories for turning out 'graduates' who have no notion about critical thinking.

​@@joescott about the tesla cars.. well how does one mine for the materials that goes into the batteries? and we all know batteries do not last forever, so once again, short sighted solutions. yeah i know this video is old by now, but the electric car movement has kept on pushing, whilst nobody talks about all the downsides.. same as when they banned the old light bulb, whereas the new modern LED lights require a cooling system. "ok so i got this new eco friendly (?!?!?!) 6w LED lamp, yeah.. they break down, they dont give off heat as the old ones. guess we'll need to heat up the place during winters with some other electricals that draw more watts, oh yeah.. and you cant just throw away the new lamps, because of their materials.." i wonder how many people will rethink or simply chuck it in with the other trash..

@@boogathon lol so Mr. Scott has "no notion about critical thinking", eh??? Goodness: our society is so polarized that many folks automatically and reflexively hurl insults at anyone who dares think differently than they do, about matters that they deem important. This is making rational and "critical" thinking on BOTH sides of the major issues of our time, less and less common: each "camp" thinks that they are Right, with a capital R, and that people who disagree with their faction are mentally challenged or "indoctrinated", or even nearly mind-controlled by the various forms of information media that they pay the most attention to (think Fox News and rumors on Facebook vs the BBC, public television stations and NyTimes, for example). We have to find ways to build bridges between opposing factions, not to keep blowing up the few bridges that remain. Only a meeting of minds: a determined effort to seek and make the best use of common ground between warring camps, can produce a future truly worth living in.

And taxing us to death will definitely fix it!

@@joemercuri6242 Because if there is ONE thing we hate more than having our prosperity eroded by a harsh climate, then it is having our prosperity eroded by harsh taxes.

"One can say "it's happened before", but never this fast" How fast is it? How fast was it then? If you believe it is a problem, what is your solution (without, of course, merely creating a new problem).

Exactly.

That is because there is no intention of making things better. The intention is to obtain power over the fuel supply. The provincial government of Ontario got rid of all its coal-fired power plants and all means of generating electricity except wind and solar. They built loads of windmills which of course don't generate except when it's windy and now the population each pay a supplement on their bills because the provincial government have to pay some other province to generate the electricity they need...

Because left wing governments give them the money up front to prove there is a problem, NOT to find out if there really is a problem. Therefore, the scientists use only the data that suits the governments pre determined political position as that was what they were told to find.

@@phillipdavies6548 Really? Where? The US? Not a left wing government (even when Obama was Pres it was still centre right by world standards). China has a left wing government, and they're the single biggest emitter of CO2. Where is this left wing government that's sponsoring all of the climate science?

Nature is tough of course and life always finds a way. But humans are much more vulnerable. Climate change won't kill life on earth entirely but it will kill a lot of humans.

Then that bus was probably there since long before you were born, and, honey, we don't have that much time. Or we coukd just wait until plants cultivate our cars that won't have been used in ages cuz we all died out XD

I understand how seeing that seems like a good sign, but all due respect, that is an ignorant statement. Now by ignorant I simply mean you are ignoring the reality of the situation because it’s easier to ignore it and continue on with your life. It’s easy to say “oh well plants are resilient, we will be fine, everything will work itself out.” But.. All environmental science points to the fact that climate change is real, humans have had a negative effect on it since industrialization, and, as Joe pointed out, that will only become exponentially worse due to a Downward spiral, and we will end up losing large portions of our land mass and population to rising sea levels. The alteration will also cause massive storms to happen much more frequently and make accessing certain raw materials much harder and more expensive. And though plants may survive and certain animal species may survive, we are very fragile, and we won’t all survive it. It’s not just a physical battle or a mental battle, but an emotional one that our families down the line will have to fight every single day. Earth’s population will plummet. technological growth will slow down because it will be so much harder to access the materials needed and we will have far less people to work on the science side of everything. As joe mentioned at the beginning of the video, humans hardly had any time to innovate because we were working so hard to survive during the ice age. And yes while we may end up being those plants that made their way around the bus and thrived, it will NOT be easy. The journey to flourishing will not be beautiful, it will be agonizing. And it could all be prevented or at least prolonged until a genius who knows how to avoid it comes around. But we choose to ignore it and let our grandchildren and their children deal with the consequences.

Nature will be fine, nature doesn't care about humanity- it's human civilization lasting for more than 50-100 years that is really being threatened......

Gabe Zarate exactly

What did Joe "nail"? He's still ignoring the FACT that there is nothing happening now that is either unusual, or unprecedented. It's all happened before human CO2 was a factor - and it happened to a much greater degree. Global temperatures have been _MUCH_ higher in the past, and also MUCH lower, just prior to the current Holocene. And global temperatures fluctuated by _TENS_ of whole degrees - within _DECADES_ - when human emissions were *not* happening. But now there's all this wild-eyed arm waving over the WIGGLE in global temperatures of a fraction one degree - over more than a CENTURY. When you look at the current climate alarmism in that context, what's your conclusion? My conclusion is that we're very fortunate to be enjoying a true "Goldilocks" climate. So, why all the scare tactics? The answer is simple: the gov't wants a carbon tax passed. Which will not change global temps by even 0.001ºC. But it WILL create a flood of new tax money for the government. Connect the dots, folks.

@@boogathon What you fail to acknowledge is that CO2 has never risen at the rate that we are jacking it up. In the last 25 years we have emitted more CO2 than we HAVE EVER released and there is at least a 10 year lag in CO2 release and the consequences we will pay for that release. So wait for it! Your inability to see the handwriting on the wall is what is killing us all!

@@boogathon - paraphrasing Andrew Coleman, the "recent" anthropogenic global warming (AGW) jump in CO2 in the atmospheric and in the sea when graphed is called "the hockey stick". kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b6l7gauhu7uue58.html Michael Mann -- The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines. Additionally, the FACT that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is rising means that global temperatures are rising and sea temperatures are rising and that kills ocean coral reefs. www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climate-change-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/

@@andrewcoleman318 , how could you possibly know that CO2 has never risen at the current rate? Ice core records don't provide that kind of detailed information. Do you know of another record that shows how fast CO2 rises? If so, please post a link to it. What ice core records do show is that CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, and it remained that high for millions of years. But during those millions of years of high CO2, there was never runaway global warming. If you can't see that if 20X higher CO2 isn't a problem, then the current one-twentieth concentration can't be a problem, your beliefs must be akin to religion. They certainly aren't based on science.

@@robertgraybeard3750 Go ahead and believe whatever you like, that's what makes a market. There's no way I could ever convince you that rising CO2 isn't a problem. So I'll just continue to enjoy our current "Goldilocks" climate, and leave the wild-eyed scares to the folks who believe they're really happening. As for me, I'll believe there's a problem if and when current global temperatures exceed past parameters. So far, they haven't.

Amen to that. Nuclear fission makes the most sense on almost every metric. I hope my great grandchildren have a fusion powered world but right now we should just scale what works and what works well like France proved in the 70s and 80s

@@doritoification we haven't build a new nuclear power plant since three mile island. Obama was just starting to push for renuclearization when fugashima had it's meltdown 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@Ender.wigginn well tjere's vogtle under construction but yeah the west hasnt seen much action in recent years. The torch has been passed on to China, Russia, India, south korea and the like. There will be a new nuclear renaissance in the not too distant future though I'm sure. The french government just asked EDF to prepare to build 6 new EPRs over the next decade

Well said nuclear is the way to go but the fear is still amongst many. I'm a scientist too BTW a, Biologist and worked in Applied Physics too LOL.

@@BushCampingTools yeah it's really sad we have so much fear around it. People just don't understand radiation, let alone radiation dose and biologically absorbed doses. If sciences were taught more concurrently in primary and secondary school, rather than one science per year, I'd say we should teach some radio chemistry along side a biology unit on the effects of radiation, and a physics unit on nuclear fission and fusion (focused mostly on peaceful applications) so that our youth would understand the stuff and not fall victim to the sensational histeria around it. I've even met pro nuclear folk who still keep Potassium Iodide in their medicine cabinet with the belief it'll save them from any radiation poisoning 😳

Ya His early presentation looked decent from what I know, then he completely ommited this...

Yes but it doesn't stay long in the air, unlike the CO2.

@@ofdrumsandchords But also, CO2 is not that significant. It has a logarithmic relationship with temperature. CO2 has been way higher than it is today without the same temperatures.

@Jim P 100 years

@Jim P , the carbon dioxide is used by plants like we use oxygen. If you were to use C^14, you could trace it to show that CO2 is constantly on the move.

Lone Wanderer - no Tony is a fraud and a con man. He cherry picks, distorts, edits and misrepresents data to make a false case.

@@NapoleonGelignite Funny, that's exactly what he shows climate alarmists doing by showing their alterations to factual data.

Lone Wanderer - the Koch brothers paid skeptical scientists to check all the raw data for errors or distortion. When the results came in they cut the funding. Can you guess why?

@@NapoleonGelignite Because they want open borders as much as Soros??

Lone Wanderer - no because, the skeptical scientist could find any faults in the science. The lead scientist publicly changed his position and accepted AGW was real.

Riker Barclay ... no it doesn’t. My EV runs on electricity generated by my solar panels. And the electric grid gets cleaner all the time as renewable energy becomes more widespread.

Peter RONAI Your solar panels are created by fossil fuels, dummy.

@@seanm3226 no they're not.

Look into Tony Heller here on KZfaq. He is very informative using graphs and newspaper articles.

Yes he did, that’s why he either intentionally or unintentionally made this into propaganda. Although it was very informative anyways.

I wish Joe would just get beyond the CO2 propaganda and realize that the scientific models were all fundamentally flawed. How can I say that with confidence? Easy. Models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. Considering that scientists have only just recently begun quantifying some of what they now recognize as the most significant factors affecting our planetary climate: Solar cycles and activity, clouds, water vapor, albedo, our planet’s magnetic field, our sun’s magnetic field, cosmic rays... all these have a much larger effect than mere carbon dioxide on our planet. Truth is, we just don’t understand enough about this complex system yet to base any kind of meaningful predictions about the planet’s future. In fact, the approaching Grand Solar Minimum, is expected to cool the planet significantly in the coming centuries.

@@KenRomero I remember they specifically left out the massive effects of water vapor on the earlier models because it made calculation too hard. So in the early models we were obsessing over the effect of CO2 and ignoring the effect of clouds and the water cycle.

Ken Romero regardless of climate change, living sustainably is good.

Far from all activism is doing anything good, a lot of it has more negative consequences than positive, and lots of it is based on false information and assumptions that won't hold up to any scrutiny. Lots of "activism" regarding the environment is in fact so misguided that it SEVERELY ignores and neglect the ACTUAL environmental issues we have or face. The CO2 hoax is a great example, so is the campaigns to "save" the great barrier reef, which is already thriving like nobody's business.

@@calysagora3615 I'm sorry, do you want to back up anything about the Great Barrier Reef, which is actually about half bleached and dead? www.coralcoe.org.au/for-managers/coral-bleaching-and-the-great-barrier-reef

@@calysagora3615 links look like this too: www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/explore-atlas-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-map-climate-change/

@@calysagora3615 I can literally do this all day, as there are enough government-backed studies, as well as independent ones, which completely disprove everything you just said. The fact that you seem to think it's all a "hoax" truly betrays your lack of general knowledge...

HAHAHA, yeah, because governments has no vested interest in finding global universal and existential excuses to steal more of your money and gram more power over you? How naive are you? How many whistle-blowers have to explain that you can't get a job in climate science or a grant if you don't agree to the pre-determined outcome of the research they are paying you to do? How many reports are you ignoring that proves the opposite of what alarmist claims? The actual climate scientists tends to disagree with the AGW nonsense. There is ZERO evidence to support the CO2-causing-warming nonsense, but there is AMPLE evidence that it is rapidly making the planet greener. Did you MISS all that??? Is it because you take all your info from EcoWatch and CNN? The most life-giving element on the planet is now a pollutant? ROTFL. It is no exaggeration to call this insanity a hoax.

A great video for non-scientists. For the rest of us, it's amusing.

Notta Realguy yeah, he addressed that, climate change ..

@25point8 that’s not very nice 😰

And yet most places dont seem to dissapear into the ocean.

Notta Realguy, ofcourse, for example because of sun activity, while that is not the source of this problem in this case.

@dj1200 Great, not a single relevant argument. Only scaremongering. Emotional points and nothing more. You can see on the youtube channel of tony heller for example how alot of the supposed evidence is fraudelous or simply speculation. Why would I want to believe in something that isn't true?

In other words we're not even at the Wright Brothers stage of fusion energy, just the Leo Da Vinci awkward wing-pak drawings and possible disastrous test-flight stage...

@Jason Merrone Yeah, but that's the part that will like never happen, let alone by 2020. We'll be dead from not using concentrated solar thermal plants with molten salt storage and other renewables long before fusion is ever a reality.

@Jason Merrone says " We know what fusion is and how it works" Good for you! I don't know these things so it is important that someone knows it.

+John Foley Awe... That's incredibly nice. Thank you!

+Nyssila Indigo Thanks!

+Joe Scott are you really concerned about climate change? because I am!

@@stevechester3504 But I am not concerned. Why not? Because I've been in the field for more than forty years, and I've seen the very same Chicken Little reaction to the global cooling scare in the 1970's. The public is spun up, then they're pointed in the direction the gov't/media complex wants them to go. And it's always in the same direction: more taxes. Lower standard of living. &etc. If this false alarm was based on reality, by now the devastation from rising CO2 would be shown on the 6 o'clock news every night. I don't mean stock footage of calving glaciers, or of Algore's Polar bear on an iceberg, or of natural flooding. Instead, we'd be watching the South Sea islands being submerged, and we'd see the Florida coastline radically change as the oceans encroached. We'd be watching as the last few Polar bears were captured, so they could re-populate the Arctic if the ice cap ever came back. We'd be watching as more hurricanes, tornadoes, and typhoons devastated coastlines and cities. In other words, all the scary predictions would be coming true. But they're not. The predictions were wrong, all of them. But there is *_nothing_* unprecedented happening. And whatever is happening now has happened well before CO2 began to rise - and to a much greater degree. Given those verifiable facts, what's your conclusion now?

@@boogathon temperatures have risen a couple degrees and weather has been more extreme in recent years.

steve chester: NO, temperatures have *NOT* risen a couple of degrees! Where do you get your *misinformation?* And global weather has NOT been more extreme in recent years. As a matter of FACT, extreme weather events have steadily *DECLINED:* 1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SBdDntcRgAI/AAAAAAAAATw/J_oTeNILjso/s1600-h/tornado-fatalites-1916-2005sm.jpg www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg And here is a chart made from NASA's own DATA, showing the change in global temperatures over the past century: i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg Please stop trying to muddy the waters with nonsense. The above information is available to anyone who spends just a few minutes searching. Try doing that, instead of parroting what you heard on _Mother Jones._ Finally, THANX to whoever posted _"HIGHLIGHTED REPLY",_ because that will draw more eyeballs to my answer. And just MAYBE that person's ignorance will be lifted - if only by a tiny amount. We can always hope, eh?

Down here in Florida we can't get out of the 80's while the rest of the country is having record cold. Sucks being surrounded on three sides by warm water.

Definitely not turning into a ice age down here in australia haha!

The solar minimum is that 40 year cycle you see in temperature graphs. The mini-ice age cycle is more like 400 years but it's about ready to take effect too. Even with the green house gas effect it should continue to get colder for awhile.

You are factually incorrect. One of the extremely well modelled and well documented effects of climate change is that weather extremes will increase in frequency and severity. This does not mean that the planet as a whole is cooling or now entering a "grand solar minimum AKA mini ice age.". The planet is warming. In fact there is not a single part of the world where the average surface temperature isn't getting warmer. Here is a great video from NASA that illustrates exactly what is happening: climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/101/video-global-temperature-variation/ Rapidly changing climate patterns like changing precipitation patterns and record cold snaps that result in crop loss are evidence for climate change. The other side of extremes is also true as we're seeing droughts also increase in frequency and severity.

@@patwest1815 This is factually incorrect. The world is unanimously warming as a result of human induced C02 emissions. No part of the world is cooling and no climate model supports the idea that it will either continue to get colder or has been getting colder. Again NASA is a great resource to better understand this: climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/101/video-global-temperature-variation/ The rest of this site is a fantastic resource to better understand the causes and effects of climate change as well as the overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that supports it: climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Land is sinking.

G F LOL In Tuvalu they have to swim to school.

@@rogerpattube In Iceland they teach us how to swim IN school.

Sean Reynolds wish my train of thought was this clear

I hope the one you have left will serve you well for the rest of your days lol

@Moderate American -- one sided towards the Truth? Not so much sad . . . just Truth.

@Moderate American -- no, "many" do not. A few have been hired by Oil, Coal and Gas companies lobbies to create FUD -- and that is about it. The underlying math is pretty simple. CO2 retains heat overnight, the Oceans act as heat-sinks and the ice is melting. Not real hard to track that, is it?

@Moderate American -- The Science portion is called Thermodynamics. A Junior (College) Level Mechanical Engineering class. Covers the Thermal Energy of various gases, liquids, etc. US is near the top on per Capita for producing Greenhouses gases and has been so for many decades. Wiki has the numbers covered. Why all the "I think" and make-believe, when this information is easily available? That is a real question -- I do not understand the thinking? US just needs to take some self-responsibly and clean US up First -- and let the World follow along. Here are the Wiki Numbers >>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

@Moderate American -- Really, I am a Graduate Engineer and work the Texas Energy Sector. Yes, the US is a Major (Major, Major) contributor to past and accumulated CO2. And new. Think about this just a second -- IF the US is now the Largest Oil Producers -- which is all burned into the Air -- how could we not be? But yes, I have read the GND, and their math seems to work out fine. Going to fully renewable electric (likely Silicon Solar PV) should work out fine, and over all the GND should cost US half or less of what things cost US now. Will just cut out some top-end Billionaires. And no, no "Communists" are involved nor required. :P

It's entertaining until the Green New Deal is passed and everybody starts starving, due to Socialist policies, not climate change.

@Arkady How was it standing in line for a dry loaf of bread then?

Colorado is going to see temps over 100F the third week of june.

I grew up in Southern Ontario, Canada. During my childhood we were covered in snow from early December to late march. I moved away when I was 20, but my family still lives there. Now I am told they rarely get snow during Christmas and there are periods where there isn't snow. I'm only 45. This is not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things. You are right that the climate is indeed changing. And while I am no expert on the subject, the consensus is clear on the cause of this. When I have had medical issues I have trusted the doctors on treating me. So does every single other person in the industrialized world. I don't understand why it is so hard for them to trust such a large consensus of educated experts in this instance.

Daniel Montes living in Georgia lol same. We went from 75 degree heat, to 20 degrees with snow, and two days later back to 70. Then the cycle repeated

Saint Albert the Gorebot will bless you!

doc214 Yes, that's where I head whenever I need a good laugh.

Better yet skip his videos and go straight to the rebuttals.

@@Brian.001 Easy to say. Please give us an example of what you find funny about them. This guy is just repeating what he hears from climate alarmist.

@@jarodstrain8905 Like the two (2) rebuttals under doc's comment? Compared with the 18 (so far) upvotes?

@@boogathon - You need to forgive them. When you don't actually _listen_ to counter arguments, you don't need to confront them. It's pretty easy to find people that let others do their thinking for them. Tony Heller is a threat to their 'intelligence'.

Marcelo Santos correct www.maaseutumedia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/climate_change_and_use_of_fossil_fuels.pdf

@@suspiciousobjectiveobserve8083 Thanks

Miapup 101 let’s melt ‘em down and forge ‘em into AR-15 receivers.

viva la revolution

Just smart.

Super duper smart. Stupendously smart. Smart beyond all understanding!

iEntity XF, neither.

Anyone can be smart with the right amount of curiosity and research.

Read about the Younger-Dryas event and realise, it happened before our time and we do not know how we got out of the freezer. It started by some external influence, and stopped for a while. Then restarted, to get us up and running about Earth making claims on whatever we found, “its mine”. Nothing belongs to us , we are just lucky we got such a good place to procreate and enjoy. Earth does not know or have any care of us being on it. But we have messed about with it so much. Thinking we own it killed millions of our and many other species in our time . They, all that were killed, had no say in it, uncontrolled eventual self extinction. Humans are a dangerous creature to be around or have on your planet. Think outside you, it’s not about you, it is what system you live as and Greed is it’s basis.

.........weather?

The sun ?

Can you show your source of information

Ice Age.

@@thedirtdevil84 www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period Not that hard to find, yet i failed at the correct times in thr initial post. Edited it, been around 1000 a.d.

Raven Black despite this comment, I will continue to believe that girls can be funny.

Well I am pretty sure it actually felt way more like a stable climate in 2016. Sooo... How is there still denial? I am from Germany where we started going green many years ago. Residents got rewarded for putting solar panels on their roofs and stuff. Nowadays our government scales that back since no one outside of Europe really seems to care... Please get rid of Trump.

mat bat or so the Germans would have us believe.

@@hawk8403 ? It's just a fact that germany went full on wind power way before the USA... And as I said, solar panels on many roofs are a thing here, you basically got them extremly cheap since the government gave subventions for doing that... It's not about believing anything, those are facts.

mat bat if we were racing toward insolvency, racing toward all renewable energy would be a great way to win.

Paul Makinson What changes ?

I call bullshit. there has been thousands of extremely quick shifts in the past, in both directions. You clearly haven't looked at the numbers and graphs of the actual science. You are biased from seeing tons of alarmist propaganda and IMAGINE that you are seeing abnormal things when they are in fact absolutely normal.

@@calysagora3615 The really rapid changes in our geological past can usually be traced back to extraterrestrial collisions and volcanic activity. Current warming is not accounted for by that. Climate scientists are pretty certain that greenhouse gasses are the cause of the current warming and you will not find a single science academy anywhere in the world that disputes this.

@@garlicbreds WOW, you really are ignorant. That was the most uninformed pseudo-scientific garbage assertion I've heard in a long time. There are PLENTY if not a majority of ACTUAL climate scientists that do NOT support alarmism or the CO2 hypothesis. You can regurgitate the shit leftist media is pushing to extort more "taxes", but it does not make it true. There are many MANY sensible climate scientists from NASA Goddard institute to MIT and Scandinavian meteorologists (reputable for their precision) that rejects both the CO2 myth, but MUCH more important, they as ACTUAL scientists understand that your entire narrative is MORONIC and only displays a fundamental lack of understanding science,bsincr it never have and NEVER will be about consensus. Science isn't a fucking political populariry contest, your consensus crap has NOTHING to do with science. And just to refute the bogus myth of 97% consensus, which came from a the 1700 signatures from (mostly NOT) scientists, they have comprised a list of signatures with 31000(!) Actual(!) Scientists and researchers in RELEVANT fields of science, that REFUTES this crap. Simply put: You've been conditioned to fall for a tax-extortion scheeme by lobbyist organizations like IPCC an NOAA.

Calys Agora Please do link us to some peer reviewed articles dictating that the climate has changed as quickly as it is currently, in the past. You will be the king of all deniers if you find even the slightest amount of unequivocal data relaying this information. Good luck; it’s going to be tough work using your brain.

I'm going to assume that you mean the Atlantic seaboard and not on the Atlantic Ocean. If you were living on the Atlantic Ocean and you saw a "sea level rise" that would have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with a hole in the boat you're in! Anyways, good for you! There will be a few lucky coastal areas that won't see a sea-level rise. Some areas are actually seeing an isostatic rebound effect that will even "make sea-level decrease" for those areas. That is not the case on the majority of coastlines. The effects of Climate change are not as simple as a unified sea level.