Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth 

You should do an interview with Steve Keen to do a deep dive on how badly mainstream economists have trivialized the economic consequences. it's mind boggling.

Excellent video, thanks!

and we are watching the same thing happen all over again in real time

Hey Simon, love your stuff! I've seen a video on DonutMedia about some eFuel/synthetic gasoline that Porsche is making in Chile which is "eco friendly": they captures CO2 from the atmosphere and water and run the whole thing on green energy (why they are in Chile), but running an engine still ends up releasing CO2, so it ends up being "neutral". Would love your analysis on efficiency of the whole process, since there is the whole tradeoff of green energy vs distance to customers and such.

Good report. One minor correction: John Sununu's name should be pronounced with the stress on the second syllable. Older US news broadcasts consistently pronounce it that way, such as the introduction in this interview: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YnC0seSAYSg.html

...man this is too depressing knowing noone will be put to justice for this

It's really sad. Because we don't value the things we already destroyed. For example, a forest being deforested and the deforested land is used as a farm or for other uses. But the amount of trees that were destroyed, won't be reversed by re planting them. What's lost is lost. So, the price they need to pay is impossible because it's gone. So there's no way to tell

The next best thing is to ensure gasoline and other products like gasoline will never be used again as fuel sources, but as those fuel sources are one of the most energy-dense source of fuels they will always be needed for some stuff. We can’t even get a symbolic victory of learning from our lesson and ensuring we can rid ourselves of the objects that were marketed that got us into this place. We might lessen land transportation, use nuclear energy and some other renewable sources when appropriate, learn how to reconstruct forests and seas to be sort of back to the way they were, hunt overpopulating stuff to give others a chance, and maybe even successfully eradicate invasive species and even heavily restrict overseas travel, but all are mitigatory efforts. We will never have a good climate for humans for a very long time nor will we realize the actual extent of damage or what we lost, and we can’t even make efforts to at least wean off permanently gasoline and diesel and natural gas simply because they are too energy-dense. In short? They’ve pretty much won. They got their profits, and given that everything is monopolized now, their companies will always stand.

An inapt analogy, given that the exact opposite religion(anti-smoking tobacco)gave rise to the simple lie that smoking tobacco*causes* cancer, which is demonstrably untrue - certainly in the cases of the writer who smoked billions of cigarettes without any cancer for seventy plus years.

The traditional punishment only happens after civilization falls. Mob violence from the survivors toward the blamed.

So true. It's like we have just started running a marathon when the other runner is already at the finishing line.

Great advances have been made. 1950's and 1960's were the two worst decades for smog. The clean air act of 1970 was passed unanimously by both parties. And gradually America's air quality has Improved. No way I would go back to that era.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid my generation failed you. I'm 63 years old now and a lifelong environmental activist but the vast majority of Americans of my generation have done little to nothing to change their ways... At this point I'm very glad my wife and I decided not to have children so we don't have to explain to them why they're so screwed 😢

Humans are producing more co2 daily. We are doing the reverse of progress.

@@oneirishpoet I just hope that maybe my generation save even the tiniest little bit for the next one

And now in numerous cities of China, they drive cars with headlights on during the day because the smog is so thick… And all aquatic life has been poisoned, as well as the people; the price of progress with fossil fuels is tragic

Don't confuse carbon with pollution.

@@ValMartinIreland Excess carbon is pollution, 1, and 2, I assume any pollution in water would be visible, meaning it'll likely not be carbon.

"pollution is just a byproduct of progress" lmao, Sununu could have just been a Soviet party leader in the 1970s/80s with that sentence XD, Soviet Sununu XD.

He was simply pond scum.

Like they do most things.

Ooooh, I'll bet that the Oil Companies that funded the sabotage evidence would be rilly, rilly scared if we abolished an elected government. I prefer that we abolish ignorance in Voters and we imprison proven criminals IN government. There's a reason why people abolished monarchies and chose self-rule and the elected government. Catch up, won't you?

To b fair Most governments r f*cking this up, so US is in good/poor/lazy/selfish company

History will be read by nobody .

..how govornments handle everything

The stratospheric ozone is in the worst condition ever. Don't be fooled. Every rocket launch shreds more ozone, and nuclear testing was much more devastating to the ozone layer than hairspray or refrigerant. UV-C is now hitting Earth's surface. Best to you!

🥺

@@christinearmington 🤗

Plant more trees and plants nearby your surrounding to fight the Climate warming issues 🙏🏽🇮🇳

It gets worse. If oil company executives weren’t stuck in the past they would’ve seen the potential profitability of using their existing offshore and drilling technology to provide the world with abundant sustainable energy from offshore wind and geothermal. So for climate change to exist at all The people in power from the 1970s onwards would’ve had to have been stupid as well as evil.

Completely agree

If they died, resurrect them and delete them again😅

I agree, I am one of those people who believes that there should be statues of, and monuments to, horrible people that have damaged this world, but with evident plaques describing exactly who they were and what damage they caused. Every bust of Hitler was removed after the war but I think every major capital should get one situated near their government building as a warning of what happens when you abuse the power of those buildings. People might be less inclined to be malevolent if they were reminded that their infamy would stay in the public eye for a very long time.

yeah kinda like covid.

Sounds like your talking about the Covid pandemic. my bad

Guy McPherson also said this and I believe to be true

A bit more of a detailed video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yOhpLVFbAGk.html

By destroying us all!

Yup because only people who’d rather get rich or die trying get and stay rich

I think he is the guy who warned against, "the miltary industrial complex" and their power to destroy USA demorcay.

Big Oil's cash.

Big Oil / Skull and Bones / military industrial complex... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the MIC anybody?

if anything, the real villain of the story is just human greed.

@@somebodyhere3160 100%. The military industrial complex and corruption being the prime consequence of greed.

I am old enough to know Sununu . He was a typical GOP prick who would do whatever is required to protect industry from "tree huggers"

Unless the goal was doing nothing but damage, in which case he never missed and continues not to.

First thing Ronald the clown did was talking down the solar panels from the roof of the White House... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?

@@lorenzoblum868 no you dont understand, the military is totally necessary, we definetly need them to overthrow slightly left wing governments in the global south

So did John Hinkley.

Conservatives love Reagan. But he nearly tripled the National Debt and started the decline of the middle class. GHW Bush was correct when he called Reagan’s “trickle down” economics Voodoo. There is no trickling down. What we get when we reduce taxes on the very wealthy is a bubbling up.

Thank you so much for educating people my age 🙏🏼 not many of my friends outside of academia believe me

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4TmeRU_L0mo.html

Please share your knowledge too if you can on this platform. Best.

One might presume that teaching involved at least some degree of accuracy in the dissemination of information to malleable young minds? Your comment displays room for improvement in this essential requirement. Namely, Reagan (not Reagon) and Nierenberg (not Nirenberg).

@@carleddison7479why bother with accuracy or truth when you can substitute brainwashing for teaching.

We still live in that better world but after 2050 we not

The funny thing is that it’s really not a partisan issue. There’s no pro-nuclear party, just parties that pretend to care and parties that don’t.

If we done a few things slightly differently in the Victorian era we would’ve stopped burning fossil fuels by 1900. Not because of climate change you understand but because fossil fuels are not economically viable when compared to the alternatives that could’ve been developed in the Victorian era. But they’re also an ethical to. Coal was dug up using slavery and child labour.

@@mushyroom9569 mAkE tHe cArS aLL EvS tHaTlL fIx ThE iSsuE

The carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?

The first thing clown Ronald did was to take down the solar panels from the roof of the White House... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex Mina ?

@@lorenzoblum868 Unfortunately, Reagan (and his British mate Thatcher) was one of the most consequential presidents, ever. The heritage of their neoliberal politics still lingers around. Also, the terrible approach "be chaste and don't be gay!" towards the AIDS epidemic killed so many people.

"The long term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate", 1979 irp.fas.org/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf

Who woulda thunk a Hollywood maniac would do a nasty job controlling the most powerful empire in the world.

I think you are the first person I have ever heard say that. You must be a millenial.

I hope Simon mentioned the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

@@lorenzoblum868 by what metric is carbon toxic. When all life is dependent on it .toxicity is measured by the LD 50 test .what exactly has carbon to do with the military apart from the fact that all personell are carbon based life forms .

@@andrewtrip8617 1. Carbon footprint 2. Toxicity footprint = all toxic compounds/elements / waste.....

The carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex Cameron?

A more channel that goes into more detail ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yOhpLVFbAGk.html

@@lorenzoblum868 Are you a apid or full-time activist? You keep posting the same thing. How many GT of CO2 did the US military emit last year. How about China Baowu Steel Group?

Its modern hysterical religious bullshite. Ireland is just as cold now as it was in 1960

i watch it all unfold for 70 years and it hurts to see how backward and uncaring we have become. Even Greta is not a hero to many people it's so sad.

Agreed. This channel is great overall.

And before we learned what we always suspected. The Iran hostages were deliberately kept captive until Reagan got elected.

And people still praise this dude becuz guess what ‘my pay and life standards is a tiny bit better therefore the government is amazing and all actions justified”. And jimmy carter is still condemned for just being in leadership during the Iranian siege

Reagan is probably the biggest piece of sh1t politician to ever be elected. People have know clue how bad he screwed this country and world up. May he rot in he11

Reagan lost the plot of what was going on long before he died.

He was an actor so he would not care

That’s the nature of globalized capitalism. You will never have democracy unless you have economic democracy

@@andrewcheadle948 you do realize the ipcc has no power right… it just does research and makes suggestions. They don’t hold political power like billionaires with lobbying power or politicians. Stop being stupid

@@andrewcheadle948 how can you be this ignorant?

It would have been someone else if not them specifically

Not jusy IPCc but Al and Greta .

Arrhenius Equation, 1889. Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?

A very good video that features the prophet michael mann ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yOhpLVFbAGk.html

The entire religion of global warming or climate change-And on any view it is religion because based on belief or passive unquestioning acceptance, is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; it is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as relatively gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

50 years ago Klaus Schwab formed the World Economic Forum. The main focus of the world economic forum is climate change. Klaus is the main student of a liberation theology catholic archbishop Helder Camara. His other main student was pope francis. Liberation theology is marxist catholicism. Camara worked with Marcuse and Friere to push global communisim. All of this "climate crisis" cultisim is an extention of that.

@@nayrtnartsipacify Hmm, no doubt, religious fanatics ever were meddlesome trouble makers and stupefiers of the witles and degenerate. Nothing was ever unproved by religious ,mumbo jumbo and monkey business.

As someone who watched Oppenheimer last night, this hits _way_ too hard

@@SimonClark Whilst watching Oppenheimer I couldn't help feeling I'd wished they'd made the film about the Merchants of Doubt instead.

Too bad Big Brother Algorithm won't let him mention the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

@@lorenzoblum868 ridiculous. we can mention that.

Here is a better more detailed channel/video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yOhpLVFbAGk.html

@@Matty18795 By that you mean misinformation. Why is it always yanks promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories? Herr Goebbels would be immensely proud of your work!

Australia had one for a little while and it worked.

Because it’s anti human, carbon tax is the equivalent to a surveillance state. Do you really want every aspect of your life scrutinised?

EU ETS is fine

​@@winstonsmasterplan what?

@@kastanie7445 carbon tax isn’t achievable without technology facilitating the ‘accurate’ tracking of individual movement & consumption. We are being nudged towards a totalitarian system of mass surveillance under the banner of climate change.

Where is here? You make it sound like a bad place. Humanity has flourished as temperatures rise and fail as it falls.

@@1donniekak That is historically incorrect. Humnaity has flourished in a period called the Holocene wich was remarkably stable. Humanity is bringing this period to an end. We are currently in the process of the fourth mass extinction

@@Youbetternowatchthisyou wish!

@@tcraigh1 yawn.

@@Youbetternowatchthis Actually it's the sixth!

The entire religion of global warming or climate change-And on any view it is religion because based on belief or passive unquestioning acceptance, is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; it is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as relatively gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Most deniers are on the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex's payroll...

their "arguments" were being made in bad faith; with the same success you could say that technological progress will fix climate change 200 years in the future and today there's absolutely nothing to worry about. it's poppycock, but many will buy it, which is the point of such arguments. other economists have been pointing out for decades that the world will be poorer if climate change continues unabated.

You make a great point!

Economists should never be involved in any of these kinds of decisions, because profits over people is their highest believe and any change to the status quo is more expensive than just doing nothing.

@@07Flash11MRC I don't think that's always true. For example, giving homeless people a house for free is theorized to be more cost effective than jailing and hospitalizing them. I just think our current economic theory mostly worships short term profit, as you mentioned.

@@SpinningSideKick9000 It's not "theorized", it's been proven already which is why smart countries like Finnland do just that. You just proved my point. The only reason for economists to do things (meaning changing the status quo) is when it's economically useful for them, not out of the kindness of their heart or them caring for other people. And even then, when you consider countries like the US they don't even do the right thing when it is economically sound.

it's not a US philosophy. it's a capitalist philosophy, look around the world and you'll see similar stories

yar, that part at the end really got me. While in the US, being able to point at the handful of people from the US that deliberately stonewalled meaningful international policy and thus killing hope of giving our place up to our grandchildren and great grandchildren, the real roadblock as Reagan demonstrated was already baked the Red vs Blue two-party political system. Basically how the Bork Nomination Hearings sparked off a war of destructive, no compromise, war for a small faction within the GOP that culminated with that small faction gaining near total control of the RNC by the Reagan era. There has significant drop in bi-partisanship on Capital Hill since those events largely because of this Zero-Sum 'Us vs Them' mentality that has rooted itself firmly in the GOP/RNC policies. As Simon points out at the end of the video, there was already a strong divide between Red and Blue simply because Blue supported Climate Advocacy, therefore Red automatically took it on themselves to oppose it for no greater reason than to use it as a means to oppose Blue by proxy. Edit: If you read this far, I should mention that the Bork thing was Dem's doing the thing I just described the RNC still do, but at least I dont see the Dems continuing to uphold a grudge that throws the entire earth and all future generations under the bus after 40+ years after the fact.

Government is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex ~ Frank Zappa? Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?

Lol. It's one political philosophy. Entrench the wealth of the already wealthy even it costs the rest of humanity.

That stubbornness is what broke the USSR, and brought the idea of limited government and individual ownership of weapons to the world. It’s a double edged sword, but it’s slain some dragons in its time. Have a care for Chesterton’s Fence.

Simon makes great videos. But still not a word about the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex... Big Brother (algorithms) is watching you tube...

The entire religion of global warming or climate change-And on any view it is religion because based on belief or passive unquestioning acceptance, is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; it is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as relatively gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

All you need to have a complete picture now is the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

but just think if we had acted back then, and taken the problem seriously as adults with some degree of responsibility and foresight, instead of children raiding the proverbial candy store, we'd have been out the past many decades of excess. our computers would be a little slower and probably a bit more expensive. we might have fewer cars, and have to hold on to them longer. the landfills would be without so many layers of yearly replaced ifones. instead of rampant suburbanism with 3 trucks in every driveway, we'd have focused on living more efficiently, with less waste, which might have forced us to move closer together and make our cities nicer and more livable, with dense public transportation networks instead of five layered cloverleaf junctions and stripmalls from coast to coast. there'd probably also be fewer of us. And we'd live leaner, healthier, longer lives. things would be less rushed. probably jet travel would be very much diminished, along with all wasteful high-emission and nonessential frivolties for which sustainable alternatives exist. maybe we'd take it slow and cross the oceans on ships again. take 3-4 days to go from a port in Europe to NYC for example. And so what?

What's the uncertainty on your 1.5 degrees over 100years global average? +/- 0.1 C? 0.25 C?

uhm, no, i disagree. one example of germany, my native country: during the 2000s we were world leaders in solar panel production actually. then because of some political givings, the industry faltered, companies went to asia and today we buy from china. currently, our current infrastructure minister is lobbying against a ban on combustion engines with other eu countries who rely on their car manufacturing industry. the technology has been in drawers or could have been today where we wanted it to be if people werent assholes and old industries would be willing to change instead of clinging to their power. good for them, bad for us all. other technologies like fusion or gas or hydrogen may be good for particular industries or niches, but in a global context, reneweables are where its at. unfortunately, europe will not decide that, but rather countries like china and india (and the us, south america and russia by extension, but mainly the big global players).

a huge part of the greenhouse gases were released in the last 20-30 years. had they put in the effort, money and research during the 70s and 80s into consciously moving away from fossil fuels we'd be in a far better condition today. even back then there were technologies that were clearly better than burning coal and fossil gas.

Anyone remember the oil fields on fire in Koweït? Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody? Thank you CIA / Pentagon for Northstream wrecking.

​@@Luemm3l You must be smoking crack. Europe is in an energy crisis exactly because there out their faith in unreliable solar and wind. Mass poverty and deindustrialization will happen if the world goes down the path of Europe.

Yeah we definitely had the technologies to begin making policies with teeth back in the 80s. And with proper funding those technologies would have only become more efficient, as well as refining newer technologies. Expanding nuclear to mitigate or even halt coal produced electricity is a no brainer. Wind and solar are still vastly underused (HOAs even limit private citizens from effectively using solar on their own homes). There was much we can have done back then, and far more that we can do now. But we won’t. Not until something true my disastrous happens, which will probably be in about a decade or so, and by then it’ll be a bit late in the game.

Too bad censorship won't allow to mention the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

The carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex Peter?

They were just typical GOP pricks. Even if they didn't exist, once Ronnie Raygun was sElected, the only question was how fast the shit was going to hit the fan.

@@lorenzoblum868 Please stop spamming. The military industrial complex is a large issue, but climate change is related to all industries, not only the military one.

Don't blaspheme.

​@@Moses_VII There's no such thing as God.

the wealthy will always be better of the masses

Leaded gasoline!

We already know the ending, so not too depressing.

I know the feeling. But do make a reminder for yourself to come back

We're still missing the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

@@lorenzoblum868 i don’t think that really enters into it. If the USSR and USA could agree on the whole in the ozone layer, i don’t see how the MIC impacts this at all.

@@lorenzoblum868 It needs to be decarbonised.

"We" being *You* and which identifiable immediate interlocutor that you are addressing?

@@vhawk1951kl most definitely homo sapiens, but considering that reply I'm not sure if I want to include you in that. Not particularly... sapient...

@@Argosh Clearly that is your best and only shot which explains much, particularly how religion makes fools of men(human beings)

@@vhawk1951kl it's funny, because you're the religidiot...

@@vhawk1951kl Why are you such a worthless troll?

Non-Euclidian

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. You wil get bored with your religion toy soonenough or another one will become fashionable and off after that, you and the rest of the flock will go.

This is nonsense. The climate movement and NGOs have utterly failed. Join Just Stop Oil or one of the other civil resistance movements and force the changes.

Today photovoltaics of the cheapest form of energy closely followed by wind. Just imagine how much better they would be if countries with a well educated population took research and development of these technologies seriously 50 years ago.

@@alwynwatson6119 there is no "clean" energy. There is greed, hence corruption... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?

If you want to know climate deniers motivation, follow the money... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?

i call what he was doing climate whispering. i wasn't able to vote yet, but i really appreciated his energy talks. raygun's election totally traumatized me.

It was not so much that they were protecting corporate profits as they had an Anti-science, anti-sustainability agenda. Research and development of technologies that have a lot of potential that are currently in their infancy is a profitable thing to do.

Nirenberg was a Scientist aswell.

Very good question, and the answer is predictably a little more complex than a simple relationship. Skeptical Science has an excellent article on the subject (great resource for questions like this) skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

@@SimonClark awesome, thanks a lot 🙏🏼

@@SimonClark so basically: the initial temperature signal comes from orbital parameter changes, triggers a positive feedback with CO2 and therefore continues to warm/cool until the next orbital parameter changes. This both explains the CO2 effecting atmospheric temperature (greenhouse) and the CO2 signal lagging behind the temperature change, right ? 😁

​@@xxdr34m5xx_4 bang on, yes

@@SimonClark Only problem is that CO2 rise lags Temp rise by several centuries. Which is problematic for AGW theory....

You need 5000 to 10000 ppm or even 30000 ppm (the Higherst estimative of carbon dioxide on Permian) to reach such disaster. The global temperatures was around 32°C.

@@vascomanteigas9433 you're not considering how much faster todays mass extinction is occurring than the end permian.

Yet more idiocy brought to us by credulous, low information environmentalists.

Yeah… we had a good run. But we‘ve lost. Let‘s hope civilization survives.