So extinction rebellion as you like to upload your BBC performances, how about you upload your representative’s humiliation at the hands of Andrew Neil?
That's why it's so hard to convince climate-change deniers, who have been fooled by a small number of scientists and other (especially right-wing) public figures - who are all part of a world-wide disinformation campaign funded by Koch, Shell, Exxon etc.
@@mudslid3 Governments pay lip service: "look we employ scientists to research climate change"! - then they do diddley squat about it. Maybe they are still in hock to the big industries who finance climate-change denial agendas and disinformation for their own profit!
@@PeterOzanne guess you have personally read the IPCC reports? Or did you just rely on the interpretation of a teenage girl and a Tabloid Journalist George Monbiot?
The moderator confuses projection with risk. There is a credible risk of mass starvation. This is not a projection of mass starvation. Risk management is not the same thing as fear mongering.
If I got arrested or put in jail my job would go straight down the tubes. So it's ok to take time off or live on your savings while you destroy other peoples' means of support?
Simon Maguire it’s the followers who are chaining themselves and getting arrested, and it’s the organizers who are getting paid to appear on TV and get book deals.
dammit ..I don't understand the reluctance to agree many millions of people will die quite soon if we don't solve this crisis...people should be in fear...not sticking their heads in the sand.
@@elingrome5853 Did you miss the bit where if we get to 4C the worlds carrying capcity for humans is reduced by 6 or 7 billion? Never mind that that also involves wiping out most of the rest of the wildlife because we'll be using all the resource. We have other sources of energy and could transition off fossils in 20 years without any real difficulties at all. You are the one that's fearmongering, and trying to lock us into inevitable disaster. Change direction now and disaster can be avoided.
You’re attacking the wrong country. Britain has cut co2 emissions whilst China and India build new coal power stations and Brazil destroys the Amazon rainforest
@@chrisj9700 actualy XR is a worldwide movement and it needs all if not as many countryies as possible onboard and working towards better futures, why would China listen to a croud of english protesters that then go home and continue to pollute with no reaction. Idk if i wrote that the way I meant it but its like the saying 'practice what you preach' because if we dont then what reason would they have to do as we say? Just because we have made a bit of progress doesnt mean we can put our feet up and claim its not our issue anymore, we still have so much more to do.
Christopher Jennings China and India are making stuff for us. It’s still our problem we have just outsourced. Bit like us shipping all our plastic to poor nations and pretending we are doing really well with recycling
Why did the interviewer ask a question only to constantly interrupt? I would have liked more time to be given and let the scientist provide more information about how science perceives the risk. As always the purpose of these interviews is not to shed light on a serious problem. No science is going to prove that x number of people will be dead by a given time because they don’t know what measures governments will take. However business as usual will do massive harm. At what precise date? Who knows. But since the Paris agreement GHG emissions have increased. 2050 is far enough away for today’s politicians to distance themselves for actions they take now. It is reasonable to assume that there will be many climate refugees, that areas that now grow food will no longer be able to. Some places will experience flooding and others drought. Even the US military recognise climate change as a threat multiplier. Wars get fought over resources and it’ll be our grandchildren that are expected to fight them.
Tony Youens: I live between Canada & USA. I watch BBC and other British programs interview XR people and am constantly shocked at the way interviewers ask questions and then often shout over and interrupt the people before they can make their point. Its very sad when the issues involved may literally mean the difference between life and death. How can ordinary people access the truth under these conditions?
Hi Sarah. Take 5 minutes to google arctic sea ice loss by volume since 1970. 5 more minutes to google the consequent disruption to the northern hemisphere jet stream and the disruption to the weather patterns this causes to the major food producing areas of the world. This will be a salutary moment in facing the facts. I wish us all well. Add in the catastrophic loss of insects and earthworms and the inevitable outcome is an ever increasing loss of food crops...already started. Perhaps your interview would be more in line with reality. The major facts are simple, uncontested and truly frightening. Good luck
Add another 5 minutes to see that GHG emissions are again going through the roof despite more and more renewables going on stream. Add in the fact that over the past thirty years we only achieved a tiny dent in the growth of emission..and that was for less than a year!.. A depression or major recession is the only thing that has proven to work. Our economic system is killing us..
Then take 5 minutes to google that north and south poles go in hot cold in cycles. Its normal. Climate activists have no precis answers. No one does. They want to abandon economic growth and development for climate protection. Not even the IPCC suggest that. They are against 98% of all the energy sources on the planet. Using the remaining 2%, (wind and solar), and with no capabilities to store unreliable power, they expect to power the world, including 1 billion new electric cars requiring even more electricity from the grid. No one mentions that Co2 and temp have a logarithmic relationship. Even if CO2 continues to accelerate, the temperature will not increase at the same rate as the past. Ending fossil fuels today temp would still mean temperature rises since it stays in the atmosphere for 100s of years. In other words it’s already too late to do anything about what already is today. CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04% in 200 yrs. Plants feed best at ~0.15% and why its pumped in to commercial greenhouses. Humans live in nuclear submarines up to ~0.4%. Rising seas are expected to be 50 cm in 80 yrs yet one third of Holland live ~5 m below sea level without a problem. Humans made the Earth 3% warmer because of 30% more co2, yet it's 15% greener which is never mentioned by MSM. The media also missed that last week 500 scientists and professionals in the field petitioned the UN insisting doomsday was not anywhere in the near future. Everyone is blames capitalism yet do not acknowledge the basic life indicators like freedom, poverty, literacy, life expectancy etc all have improved thanks to capitalism and carbon. Whilst regression is not a serious option because no-one is willing to give up their iphones, we are all hoping the patriarchal STEM fields to come up with a silver bullet. This panic on CO2 warming consuming the world whilst the real environmental problems like toxic pollution, over fishing or the 9 Asian rivers feeding 95% plastics in our oceans is being ignored. And to top if off it really doesnt help that the track record of alarmist doomsday climate warnings have been consistently wrong or exaggerated since the 60s. Climate policy needs to be based on sensible forecasts, realistic economics, and genuine concern for those most vulnerable in the developing world, not by costly and unnecessary virtue signaling attempts at mitigation in the west. Accelerating energy innovation, increasing resilience to extreme weather and reducing toxic waste does not require any agreement about climate science. It is just climate pragmatism, not climate panic.
A voluntary job still means you are on benefits. I still say that 90% of them are on some kind of benefit. Surely the government can find tree planting jobs up in the north of Scotland. Clearing rivers of rubbish. And building bike paths across country by hand. All these things would help the environment. And there are crops like strawberries raspberries potatoes turnips broccoli need to be farmed for the vegan diet. Unemployment could be cut drastically there are plenty of people to do the jobs. Surprise surprise they suddenly earn money
@Shigetsu That's the technique broadcast news shows have been using for decades now. The BBC and other channels need to find a new format when they deal with the IPCC report and XR. However, the IPCC report has been provided to actual policy makers and I believe this will be brought forward to the next summit in December for practical measures. In a way, what the broadcast channels and youtube comments do are of little importance - other than allowing for venting. As long as practical measures are put in place. XR themselves are doing their best to let politicians know that they are being watched and need to include citizens in the decision-making - otherwise they will get protests against unexpected fuel tax rises as we saw in France. A citizens' assembly is crucial to make this process smoother, cooperative and inclusive.
rinnin it’s strange! I think the BBC try to hard to be “objective” in interviews like this and don’t advocate for simple things like saving the planet!! They are not entirely biased for example the David Attenborough documentary was on point!!
The risks don't just go up with every "half degree of warming"... they go up with any fraction of a degree of warming continuously!! Every OUNCE of of CO2 makes it worse.
There are two point concerning the IPCC 1.5 report that I would like to emphasise! 1) Positive feedback loops are not included in the calculations for the 1.5 report because they are not fully quantifiably. 2) Many scientist agree that that a climate warmed by around 4 degrees will become unstable - reach a tipping point. Explanation: 1) we understand the principal mechanic of positive feedback loops (PFL), but we do not have concrete figures on them. Not having the PFL in the IPCC 1.5 report means the repot is rather conservative. Also it means we do not know how much the PFL can potentially accelerate the climate warming up. Two examples of PFL are permafrost (essentially frozen biomes that is warmed and exposed to air and micro organisms will be turned into CO2 and Methane. 2) when the tipping point is reached the climates warming will continue to accelerate REGARDLESS of what humanity does. Here I would like to add that of the past 5 global extensions 4 where CO2 induced. And we as Humanity are running eyes wide open into the 6th!
@@MrPeach18 so now you disagree with nasa. OK then I give up. Most research and development in Europe is funded or help funded by the European union...
@@MrPeach18 so he said in 1988 that global warming was happening and now he is still saying the same thing... I don't understand the problem here. I was in the alps in 2006 and at 4am it was 6deg c. Its happening I'm afraid.
@@timpala5841 because most people no not seem to realise that all IPCC reports except the latest used 1750 as the base line. The latest moved the goal posts to 1850, thus eliminating another 0.3 degrees of rise.
You want to be co2 free and keep fossil fuel in the ground. How then will you make all your plastic windmills and solar panels for the world, which will have huge carbon footprint. Windmills and solar are made from petro chemicals /fossil fuels. Co2?
When you are on a citizens' assembly, you will get the opportunity to ask your question of experts in that particular field. If you want to get the chance to do that - support XR's demand for a citizens' assembly.
@@davidmcnamara1108 You do if you want to ask it of experts in that particular field. They will be able to tell you the relative environmental costs and benefits to producing electricity using particular methods.
It's not possible to make windmills and solar panels without C02 or fossil fuels you don't need to be an expert. And now they want to put giant plastic windfarms at sea. Think about how they manufacture these. Windmills are anything but green and you don't need to be an expert.
BBC making clumsy resentful baby steps to include climate change in its output. BBC also evidently resentful for being singled out as part of the problem.
Makes me laugh. Their pathetic slow uptake, which is evident in this interview throughout, caught them with their pants down when just 18 months later the IPCC stated categorically that climate change is real and humans are at the root and branch of it! I loath the BBC. Even Sky News, of all broadcasters, has a weekly news slot given over to coverage of climate change and its impacts.
@@wangdangdoodie Except for the thousands of scientists and doctors in high profile positions who have come forward in support of XR but you'd have to make some sort of effort to know that I suppose.
@@shannonagate1889 docs.google.com/document/d/1FuZYG-gT5EPTLDyvgNnlYIS5dAy43TM1MnvOls48qIc/ www.desmog.co.uk/2019/10/16/we-believe-it-our-moral-duty-800-scientists-sign-declaration-supporting-activists rebellion.earth/event/xr-scientists-at-the-international-rebellion-in-london/ twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1185595855493062658 www.doctorsforxr.com/ www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0979-y Do you need more or what
It's time to do something about our mess, we must do what we feel is the right thing, all our hearts speak the same language, we understand when we care. How can you not love planet 🌍
@Christopher Conlogue They just seemingly deny because it's a simple thing to do. Don't overlook the social finding, Christopher, that people are inherently optimistic even in the most shittiest situations. BBC probably wants to balance information from both sides, they just don't know how. (By the way, look, if this interview would have been seriously climate-catastrphy leaning, than there would be others suggesting the same thing as you do, just from the opposite side.)
They are funded by George Soro's Open Society Foundation. Funny how they never talk about geoengineering. Every weather event she sites has been man made and not by climate change.For example, it has been established that the fires in California were and are caused by PG&E. a Rothschild company. The banks that the properties mortgages are with are Rothschild. The insurance companies are Rothschild. So now we have a massive land grab as the banks wont lend on a property that isnt insured. Insurance companies wont supply cover because its a fire risk area and its a fire risk area because the power companies made it so.All of them Rothschild companies and lets not forget Mr Soros is their top puppet.
A BBC invitee, scientific expert and author of the inter-government panel on Climate Change, supporting the XR case on current dangers, and making it clear that it is for governments to act. Heads will role.
@@philipocarroll Sarah was brilliant, but Myles said, and it was the panel's advice to Government, "there is a lot of science that backs up the very considerable risk we run". He did not balk at XR more pessimistic predictions.
Correct me if I am wrong but we're told that as temperatures rise then so do sea levels. the two are inexorably linked. Therefore if you struggle to find massive sea level changes it can only be because there is very little warming. I actually struggle to find massive sea level rises, not here in the UK, not on the east coast of the USA, nor in Australia....what sensible conclusion might one draw here ?
Please have a listen to New Zealand band Tripzville Godz and there new song "The Nikola Tesla song" WHICH IS DEDICATED to all the beautiful people attempting to bring the coming Climate catastrophe to the masses attention.
So what's your plan? I have watched so many xr videos and they seem to think that disruptive behavior will magically eliminate oil use. You don't get to complain about a problem without a solution. One building cities with the south side dedicated to greenhouses is the only answer and it would take all the worlds resources. Omg overthrowing capitalism just makes the cars and farming communal it doesn't eliminate oil.
50% chance of maintaining a livable environment at 1.5 but multiple studio show how unlikely meeting those target are, firstly because governments not meeting their commitments and secondly because of feed back loops like the carbon in the environment today will keep heating for the next 30years, permafrost melt emissions with rising temperatures, coral reef degradation which is now soaking up are emissions, the oceans have been capturing the atmospheres heat but it is at capacity..IPPC does not count any of these affects I’m afraid.
I agree much more needs to happen, and fast as well, but I don't believe there is time for system change/overthrowing capitalism. Because after overthrowing the existing system, you have to build something new. Are we ready for that? What's the alternative, and how do you achieve a smooth and fast transition to a new economic system without years of chaos, poverty and quite possibly deaths? Sounds to me like a lot of time will be lost that could have been spent on the problem at hand: climate change.
All our agriculture is based on the weather that has been around the last 10,000 years. Wrong we have had quite dramatic changes of climate in just the last 1000. We have had the middle ages warming period and the maunder minimum. These people would get further if they could only get their facts right instead of repeating missleading slogans
I agree with Extinction Rebellion that we need to do something and Now. but there is some really bad and inaccurate figures and concepts held by ER and its going to undermine there cause plus there appears to be an almost fascist state of mind where they states there way is the only way. I have had the argument and the result they get rude aggressive and personnel. This state of mind will only work against ER this attitude will and is undermining there cause.
Im just tired, I would totally burn all my money if we were done with it, I HAVE burned some money (too long ago, too bad) Capitalism has plagued me my whole life, Im an american, I've talked to people about the point of pursuing happiness, to doing the best in my life no matter what is encouraged, as long as it makes a real positive change, which has caused me so much pain and suffering unemployment social isolation and hatred, that I don't feel the need to discuss capitalism much, I find its a waste of time often. I find a lot more good in discussing how people are just copying others arguments, misusing those arguments to justify them simply not caring, simply complying with whatever makes them popular or wealthy. For people either too good at discussing this and clearly not thinking, or not thinking clearly enough to get that level, we have the simple fact that most people are not making ANY DECISIONS at all, except for their personal gain, and the rest of the time they are accepting whatever they are told by the authority they believe in, be it financial religious, social, sexual, entertainment, whatever it takes is what media gives us to substitute our rational decision making and critical analysis with slogans, mottos, supplied arguments, etc
This especially applies to news casters who demand answers but seem to only ask "how would this benefit me?" in as many veiled terms as they can. What they want is to hear the answers so that people have time to ready their defenses against the truth.
For anyone like me watching this in 2024 just 4 years or so after the programme it is terrifying how much the climate has changed in the intervening period and how weather extremes have become the norm. 2023 the hottest on record and now 2024 even just three weeks into February looking much higher on average temperature. No informed person is now doubting the very real risk that we will breach a sustainable 1.5C degree of warming above pre-industrial era by the end the 2020s.
the only thing who really change is the catastrophism and fearmongering of the medias about climate change. On turbo. And all the sheeps believe them. Behhhhh!
Okay! A scientist started telling that scientist is in the world to inform facts and its politicians to decide sollutions. And my continue is if politicians dont act the people have to react and be the driver for politicians to change. But fun that the "scientist" or is he (kinda degrade himself to be a politician) - then use the rest of the interview to be political
Where are the stats? Don't just say crops will die in 20 years or we only have 2 generations to live. Hard facts please, with a plausible study of over 20 years to prove your point.
The facts are in the IPCC report. Available for anyone to read and strongly encouraged to do their own research and not listen to loud mouths on social media.
You’re fighting the wrong battle. If we are going to have a monetary system, the stock market must go. People must earn their way. Public utility should not be in private hands.
Oops! The suited scientist was supposed to dismiss XR as "scaremongers". He didn't follow the script. Cue floundering interruptions from the interviewer.
Actually I expected him to back the activist up more and he played the fence very well throughout the whole interview. Everyone is banging on about the interviewer. Study the responses of the scientist more closely. He didn't expound on any of the figures the extinction rebellion activist stated and he certainly was unwilling to support her cliam about the impending extinction of 6.5 billion people. It was a very interesting interview. I expected more stats from the scientists and he was really reserved. That's not the interviewers fault. I bet the extinction rebellion activist feels fairly cheated by the whole experience.
It's funny, ive just watched the film Joker and im not gonna spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but there were a few scenes that slightly marred it for me because I thought that "intellegent" people in real life know better than to ridicule others in front of thousands of people watching because it's completely unimportant to a debate and only highlights their pathetic immaturity, and then I saw this and it appears I was wrong.
The horrible irony is billions need to die in order for things to stay below 1.5 degrees. The facts are it’s too late. I hate to admit that but the evidence out there suggests we should have dealt with this 30 years ago. Insane levels of growth across Asia in the last 25 years have made this into a problem that is out of control. Even if the world made zero carbon emissions from tomorrow we’d still be facing serious problems for many years.
Work commences on my inter galactic space station tomorrow so i am outta here in a year . There will be room for my family and a 100 lucky survivors drop me aline and a cheque and you are in
If you consider great swathes of land wiped out by drought induced wildfires, starving from multiple crop failures and the extinction of great numbers of marine species, people dying from heatwaves or thirst from lack of freshwater, while many major cities, islands and lowlands disappear under rising sea levels, plus wars over diminishing areas of habitable land to be a sort of disintegration, then yes.
...and yet a lot of the protesters (albeit serious in their good intentions) will no doubt still continue to be at it like rabbits over the next 5, 10, 20-odd years, helping the world's human population reach 10billion by 2050!
That guy David Bellamy, yes the one on TV when we were young, says different. He published an article disagreeing with carbon neutral taxation. And he's a professor of botany. He says 18,000 scientists signed a statement where they disagreed with what the public are being led to believe. He says just think how all this money could be used in a much better way because he reckons we are all being conned. He says the science doesn't add up.
@@camlinhall1363 I have looked but I can't find anything that tells me he retracted his statements. But I did find this on RU-vid : The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Where did this journalist learn how to conduct an interview? Interrupting her interviewees and asking slanted questions?? unfortunately we have seen this all before.
Don't tell me not to protest because you're doing something when I know what you're doing and don't think you're doing enough. When I think you're doing enough I'll stop protesting you and go protest the next item on my list. If your business model depends on subsidies or unpaid externalities you are stealing from me and endangering my future and I will act accordingly. That goes for the media gatekeepers too, false equivalence arguments, what-about-ism, misrepresentation, and just plain bad journalism is pervasive, mostly because of the profit motive. Science communicators must do a better job.
Don't you just love an interviewer that hasn't the least idea about the content of the programme - ever heard of Peter Wadhams and Guy McPherson and as for your ineptitude as an interviewer rude, crass obviously under instruction
she sounds unhinged. Capitalism is not perfect, but on the whole it has benefitted the world through international trade etc ... What are the alternatives because Socialism and Feudalism both have serious problems associated with them. Realistically, can you expect the developing world to stop developing which is going to require energy, or should you put your efforts into other energy sources which might meet their requirements without pumping out so much carbon (ie nuclear which the greens have resisted for decades) or technological solutions which might sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The solutions will be from innovation and the capitalist system provides innovation. You guys at XR need to rethink your position beause arguing that we should return to a more pastoral with less economic activity will create so many other problems.
@Ryan Jachtmann nonsense. Innovation usually requires capital, people invest thinking they will get a return. How much innovation does any other economic system provide.
@Shigetsu "then you are heading for a planet that will be 5 c warmer (at least)" that is just a bogus stat... even the IPCC only says a max. 1.5 degrees by the end of the century...
@@frederiksenable Agreed. People starve because they arent on the grid. You cant fuel the modern world with windmills; and without transport infrastructure, agriculture, logistics, engineering etc BILLIONS will die.
@Ryan Jachtmann People and societies have the ability and drive to be competitive in order to achieve, but we also have the will to be social and cooperative. We need to temper and tether our economics to our cooperative side now instead of relying on our competitive dog-eat-dog natures.
@Shigetsu that just isn't true, the majority of innovation occurs in the private sector with private money behind it - you arent doing your cause any good by lying. One reason why innovation cannot happen effectively withing the public sector or a socialism economic system is that the government never has enough money to invest in a scheme when it has so many other obligations to spend money on. Give me some examples if I'm wrong ....
