People acknowledge it’s a problem… but people don’t acknowledge politicians will use it as a tool to pass a big bill and do nothing about it. That’s our biggest problem.
Why are you speaking for everyone? I don't think it's a problem at all. And I have scientific, empirical, and logical reasons for thinking this is the case. So, no, not all people acknowledge it's a problem. It's not a problem. Especially people like me who have observed the decades where this was purposely made into a problem for various reasons -- and we witnessed it happen in real-time.
@@poundlandbandit6124 Well, I'll give you two big ones, although there are many more. First, pretty much everything that was predicted to happen from what scientists and advocates then called "global warming" (which they later changed to "climate change" ), has actually not happened at all. They were just flat out wrong. I'm mainly talking about all of the predictions from about 1998, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2017, 2018, etc...... None of it has actually occurred in real life. That's real-world, empirical evidence. Real science. The temperatures predicted are incorrect. The ice caps melting was incorrect. The sea levels rising to catastrophic levels was incorrect. No snow on certain mountain tops was incorrect. A lot of the climates they claimed would change, have not changed.... etc.. etc.. They are still the same overall -- although they fluctuate year by year, decade by decade within limits. Secondly, as I somewhat mentioned, the scientific models they constructed and relied on heavily for these predictions were incorrect. No matter how much they bloviated about how true they were, they have been proven wrong. So what does that say about their computer models? There are all sorts of other problems with the anthropogenic climate impact theories, that's just for starters.
The biggest problem with modern society is that we've lost our appetite for nuance. If you believe in climate change, but dont believe its an imminent threat that deserves 100% of our attention and resources, you dont have a ideological home. Our current society forces you to pick a team, then adopt all tenants of that teams beliefs. Some people are more than willing to do this. The ones that don't often find themselves disgusted and withdraw completely from the discussion, leaving only the fundamentalists to engage in the debate.
If you believe in and understand climate change, then you will know that it is an issue that demands a huge amount of our attention and resources, far more than we are giving it now. I'm sorry man, but it's just that simple, this isn't about opinions, it's about facts. And facts don't care about your feelings.
@@omnipotentbanana1576 I dont disagree with you. Climate change is very real and requires immediate action. If you read my comment, Im simply arguing that we need to be realistic about our approach. This means we cannot allocate 100% of our attention and resources on this one issue There are other issues which kill far more people today and those require attention and resources as well. You cannot say that no issue is as important as climate change.
@@thatf_inguy8220 Thats true, but there is not a single country in the world that is doing enough about it in the first place, so its hardly a very unpopular position
As a city kid from the 70s I can tell you the cars have extremely cleaner exhaust emissions. What I don't see anymore is, focused pressure on chemical companies that STILL dump into our air & ground water. Destroying nature in the process.
Yes, and I have to say it’s ridiculous how there is so much pressure on people to buy electric cars when they aren’t as clean as they say, and how they think aviation is such a large problem to our climate when it only has a ~3% impact on CO2 emissions, as a whole. If it is that large of a problem, focus on power generation around the world, as it is a much larger part of emissions, and help develop nuclear fusion etc.
@@erik1tennant LOL if we try to point out the actual thingies that accounts for most of the emission, yall gunnna loose your shit saying we all coming to take awayyy your hamburgers cz cow fart XD. And We actually are focusing on power generation and everything, thats whats actually in the bill. But the bill is blocked by coal money in Dems pocket and god forbid if anyyyyyyyyyyy republican everrrr gives a shit.
Most american cities are cleaner today than they were 30 years ago in terms of industrial pollution. The EPA and related regulations have done an ok job putting pressure on oil, chemical, and manufacturing companies to act more responsibly. It's far from perfect but better than it once was. That said, we as consumers have a responsibility too. We can't all just gaslight the discussion by saying "I'm a drop in the bucket, it's all about the evil corporations". Don't let anyone without good data convince you that EVs aren't better for the environment, or that Americans shouldn't worry about pollution because we can't control China/India, etc. Everyone benefits from a healthier environment and investing in more sustainable/efficient energy sources.
He always spoke up. He's just lately been speaking up towards his right wing audience, and he's been consistent with his left-bashing. That's what's new.
Well how many high profile left outlets crapped on him... of course he's calling it as he sees it. Same reason he moved to Texas. People are getting fed up with the crazy woke/cancel/progressive/etc mindsst.
No one can admit they are wrong anymore. On either side. "I'm right and your stupid." Its a dangerous mentality. That means we can no longer have constructive dialog anymore.
There are no "sides" when trying to understand complex systems like climate and poverty. There are just many differing opinions on how they function and how to control them. If you are on a "side" then you have already lost the plot.
@@mattblack118 There are two sides. One that says anthropogenic climate change is real and the other that denies it. If you think that is not the case, then you don't know what you are talking about.
@@mattblack118 In one sense I essentially agree. if one sees the issue in terms of "my side" and "your side" then the discussion has devolved into a competition of ideas -- of ideology. On the other hand I completely disagree with your assertion that there are only opinions of equal value. This is nonsense. Instead one needs to understand the issue at hand in terms of supporting evidence. In the case of anthropogenic climate change the evidence, which has been mounting in recent decades, has sufficient warrant and so is clear. It is real. To think that the notion of climate alarmism has equal merit is dangerous folly.
The way I see it the problem is once someone can belive in something they have zero proof for it's hard for the the change their thinking once real evidence is presented
I'm not allowed on Joe Rogan's show. He won't amplify my opinions. I am being censored by Joe Rogan! I'm a victim! What f-ing whiney babies everyone has become. The Right most of all. To be a Republican now you have to incessantly whine on behalf of Trump. Dude totally ignores COVID for 3 crucial months. He's a victim! Loses an election. Victim! Is hundreds of millions in debt despite inheriting $400,000,000. Victim! Doesn't pay shit in taxes but whines about taxes. Victim! Gets to appoint thousands of judges and stack the Supreme Court for himself. Victim of the judiciary! Not one substantial thing is being done to adapt to the climate crisis but it's the deniers who are the victims, victims, victims!!!
@@carlodave9 yes. Thank you. Freedom of speech does not mean you have freedom to a platform. Its like getting angry at a newspaper that they wont print your views every day
Reminds me of how Red Bull loves the Earth so much they’ll go turn anything into a race track. Then talk at me like I’m the one killing the Panda bears.
This reminds me that I live in the city, really far from the ocean, went to the beach 2 time im my life, but the straws that I used in home are killing all the turtles in the world. But no one ever answered my question that is "how my trash end up in the ocean?"
Wikipedia isn't a reliable because it can have been vandalized at the time you read the article. But to get a quick overview, it can be helpful. Just know that you need to check the sources used on the Wikipedia page.
Said it for 2 plus decades. You raised entitled generations. Now they are adults. And we all are going to pay dearly. My GOD. I did say this over and over again since 95.
Everyone is in a religion but me. You follow science? That's religious. I'm the one clear thinking you should listen to me. See how stupid that critique is. Even based on the few metrics he mentions, it seems pretty clear this guys ability to analyze data isn't great. He made a bunch of money off of a book though. What are the chances the publisher is a conservative?
"Proceeds to say something snowflake left-wing lunatics disagree with, but cannot dispute since it's empirically correct, so they get around it by calling it 'misleading...'" - Fixed it for you.
He tries to curtail the criticism of being misleading by being misleading, which is the irony this commenter is pointing out. Yes, technically, something being misleading is subjective, but this guy is being misleading even with every benefit of the doubt.
True, but prop damage is very hard to correlate directly to the increase in storms or their severity. Most of the increase in prop damage is due to increased value in the threatened area, which has very little to do with the storm itself, if anything. At least that is how it seems to me. Fatalities is a little bit better metric but still runs into a similar problem: more and more people live near the water, so are at greater risk.
@@terrancewilliams9209 True but at the sametime no one really cares about a cat 4 storm that doesn't do any damage and stays in the middle of the Ocean. It's the metric of more and more of our coastal cities being wrecked more and more frequently that makes folks want to do something about it.
@@jonny-b4954 death is binary. Property damage could be because of insurance over-reporting, population rise, and people moving to "climate" prone areas like the coast and below sea level. Also the environmentalist are claiming that climate change will kill of humans not that it will damage their property.
@@jasonsimms8251 Still, it's a bad gauge in my opinion. It's the cities destroyed that matters. No one really cares about a half dozen people lost to a storm. But the total turning upside down of one's life. Of one's day to day. Insurance over reporting is never a significant factor though. Someone may rip a few extra shingles off their roof to get the roof totally replaced but never met anyone who destroys their home to get paid. You never get what it's worth anyways. Even 10% fraud doesn't change the outlook all that much. Well, technically I've never heard of climate change people focus on the human death aspect personally. They've never focused on one thing in general. But more the basic toll on humans in general. Migration, your home destroyed, job lost, environmental damage, less spaces for humans to live (since we prefer to live near water) And yeah, I reckon deaths in 3rd world countries.
The issue isnt people dying from hurricanes and heat waves. It is the collapse of agriculture and wide spread famine and war. You cant say people are cherry picking and then cherry pick.
really misleading information. "frequency of natural disasters" and "number of deaths from natural disasters" are not the same thing. its just a ton of cherry picking and smoke n mirrors shit. this guy does suck
@@cardboardu6019 honey bee populations are not going to collapse. That is fear mongering. I was a beekeeper for a while and still know many personally.
@@JohnDoe-nq5pk I said "If honey bee populations collapse it doesn't much matter how many different species of ants there are", at no point in that statement did I make a claim about any insects. I work in health care, I have no opinion on honey bee health. Sorry that wasn't more clear, that is my fault. I just meant something like, don't miss the forest for the trees.
Yeah cos this guy is well known for pushing bullshit when it comes to climate change. Even here, he says 'natural disasters are not getting worse, deaths from natural disasters have declined over 90%' This statement is completely misleading. He's defining 'worse' by death count, not number, duration or financial cost, all of which are getting worse. This is exactly why Facebook put a warning, because its a narrow definition of 'worse' that neglects the reality and frames it in deaths - which are obviously declining as we have weather mapping and procedures that help us prepare to minimise death. This is why this dude is a joke of a guest and already copped all the criticism he deserved for his cash-grab book.
@@AZ2PM no different to Al Gore saying that environmental disasters have got worse due to the monetary value of the damage caused. Everyone was still getting around on horses in the 1900s of course a hurricane is going to be more damaging when a society is more economically developed. As always there is a middle ground here but you do get a lot of alarmists claiming everyone is going to die in less than 100 years. My whole issue with the climate change debate is everyone expects the government to do something. Firstly if its that important do it as an individual first. Secondly what do you expect the government to do? If they do whats needed ie ban cars, flights, international trade, construction, more than 1 child and mass agriculture they will be voted out quicker than we can blink. So what needs to be done?
@@davidchester429 The individual can only do so much. The way I see this is, if climate change is such a big problem then manufacturers should be making the change. Make electric vehicles that are not expensive. Make ships run off of water or something else. Have air transportation change their fuel consumption too. So if this is soooo detrimental to our livelihood then why aren't technologies and regulations being put in place yesterday? To me, an idiot, it seems like climate change is being blown out of proportion. I do not trust the government to be truthful to citizens. When money is involved or can be made, corruption is lurking around the corner. Joe should have two climate change people on and have them debate.
@@holyhandgrenadeofantioch2019 i've noticed that too, AND if you really want to piss them off, check the similarities with climate science and the discovery institute
Isn't climate change more than just about what our climate is doing? Isn't it about conserving finite resources? Protecting vanishing ecosystems? Protecting our air? Protecting our water? Etc etc? I think as usual the politicians and news channels have done a terrible job at figuring out how to communicate what's really important about the climate change debate and it's led to the politicisation of a very relevant subject
It’s ultimately about money. The only civilian to walk on the Moon Harrison Schmidt called it out for what it was. It’s not that there’s not a problem.. it’s that the only people with any ability to tend the flock are wolves and that will never change.
Indeed, it has devolved into "We are going to destroy our planet!!!" which is absolutely false. Taking even a glancing look at what the earth has endured in its billions of years, barring mass nuclear war, what we have done and can do doesn't even come close to what it has endured and healed from. But that is the stance that seems to be at the forefront, Earth will be destroyed because of humanity, not "lets have clean air and water because we breathe air and need to drink water". To quote George Carlin "The planet isn’t going anywhere; we are!". Everything is so hyperbolic which makes these important topics easy to dismiss when they should be discussed.
A few assumptions on the replies to this post that caring about the state of the climate etc automatically makes you gullible as to what the people in power do behind closed doors?
@Stu How else will humanity respond if alarm bells aren't ringing? Scientists have been raising the alarm since the 70's to try to turn this ship around. It's nearly too late now. I have little hope humanity will correct it. Sad for the earth and devastating for all of us who live on it.
@@afishy1465 again, as the OP said, you are focusing on the enviroment, instead of focusing on human behaviour and it's incentives. If you want to do something for the environment, you better start convincing people of not buying so much plastic crap, or better yet, create and grow a system that incentivizes not buying plastic crap. People respond much better to incentives (be them economical, cultural, sexual, etc.) than to argumentation and well polished debates. So, i can explain to you why buying certain foods in plastic containers is bad for your health, but you are going to keep buying it unless there is an actual instinctually based punishment (be it a higher price, social ostracism or the inauthenticity of the plastic version of a cultural item). So, next time, instead of condecendigly responding to a comment by sarcastically stating some unfalsifiable claim, i want you to remember the last plastic wrapping you threw away and try to feel as cocky about that as when you wrote that comment.
@@timeslot09 In the 1970's The scientists were saying we were headed for a new ice age, then global warming, after that climate change, we're almost out of time so send your money to the richest people in the planet. (YOU) have to make sacrifices...
I think joe should start bringing in prople with differrnt view points together so theres a debate rather than making isolated claims and then people going in their respective SM/news echo chambers amplify their prejudice.
No need to hear the lefts bullshit cart of lies . If you have common sense then you know the climate emergency is just about $ . Hence the Canadian carbon tax . Does nothing but burden the people with an extra tax .
@@justinlavigne9814 dude there are no varying degrees of censorship. It's either censored or it isn't and I don't believe adding context to controversial claims is censorship. If they had deleted the post entirely, that's censorship.
@@roundearthshill248 that is incorrect. Just like " fact checkers " putting a warning on something that they disagree with, even if it's true and is a fact. You make me laugh.
This guest was misleading in his "facts". Not saying he should have been censured, but his thesis is misleading. Agreed that drugs are a massive issue, but can't they both be issues that need to be addressed...it's not one or the other. Losses may be going down in the US, but North America is generally well positioned geographically from the worst effects of climate change. The same can't be said for many other parts of the world. Taking a US-centric view is irresponsible. The costs of natural disasters are skyrocketing. Just take a look at all the wild fires and droughts around the world.
Just because less people die from hurricane’s doesn’t mean they aren’t getting worse. I don’t know the science, and can’t say who’s correct, but that’s not a good argument
He gave you the numbers. The estimates were 5% stronger and 20/25% less frequent. His point would stand regardless. Our #1 goal should not be to make sure hurricanes do not get stronger. It should be to protect people from those effects. We can do that much more effectively if we tackle climate related issues in a calculated way. Not like it is the only problem we are facing.
Indeed. I live in Fiji and five years ago Cat 5 Cyclone Winston hit out shores and decimated the entire west in two short hours. It killed 44 people and while that was tragic, the real impact was felt by all that remained as many lost homes and businesses. The power lines were so badly damaged that some towns didn't receive electricity nearly four months after the event. Fiji's primary export is sugar, Winston damaged one of the country's four Mills, located in my town, so badly that it had to be completely demolished costing hundreds of people jobs and seriously hurting the economy enough that we still feel the effects of it today. Hurricanes aren't about the death count, its about the destruction it leaves in its wake.
I also picked up on that... like no shit we're better at avoiding hurricane deaths than we were a century ago. Populations have greater mobility today than in 1920. Seemed like a dishonest argument.
Wow this guy is kind of full of it. 1:15 He wasn't censored by FB. FB added a discretionary banner on his post saying that it may contain "misleading information". Censorship would be if FB tok down his post completely. And by the sounds of the rest of this interview, he did post misleading info. 2:26 He states that natural disasters are not getting worse, and then backs up that claim saying that "deaths from natural disasters have declined over 90% over the past 100 years". But death rate is not how the severity of natural disasters is determined. For seismic activity, there's the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. For Tsunamis, there's the Tsunami Intensity Scale. For flooding, rainfall intensity. Just because we are more capable of saving people from these disasters does not mean they are getting better. 2:50 What he is conveniently leaving out is that although hurricanes will become less frequent, extreme hurricanes will become more frequent, meaning that a higher majority of hurricanes will be very intense. On top of this, the numbers he sites are onlyfrom one study. The studies on hurricane frequency due to climate change are very few and have varying results, so his arguments may not even be accurate. 2:59 Even IF less people are dying from natural disasters, the biggest impact is the destruction they do to infrastructure. A hurricane in a developing country like haiti can dessimate their roads, bridges, and structures and cost billions of dollars to repair. The same is true in the US.
I haven’t read his book but based on what he is described, It kind of sounded like Facebook was right to put the warning label. He defended his argument about natural disasters getting worse by using some death statistics about America. Natural disasters and deaths from them are not limited to one country. And claiming we are or aren’t in a mass extinction are both misleading. This should be a conditional statement
For example New York is going to get fucked at the latest when sea level starts to rise high enough. Seems to me that future generations are going to have to deal with a lot of damage worldwide one way or another.
And theres no way to know if storms are even caused by the climates change. Its been hotter than this before and its been colder than this before. This is the part that is now starting to be accepted that there is some climate change caused by carbon... Ive never seen a scientfic paper making this claim. All I know of is predictions for the future and none of them call it an emergency.
@@ImRicWooo Not sure about the cause but I've been living in countryside most of my life & I've noticed quite sudden declining in insect numbers which is worrisome especially when we are talking about pollinators. Tick populations seem to be rising tho. Anywayz... I think you can see a lot of alarming changes when you just open your eyes and senses. You don't need any scientific papers for that. Everything is connected and if something like pollinators start to get extinct it will drastically affect humans too.
His comparaison with death in america was weak and from other comments i've read, he doesn't understand everything he is talking about.... So yeah, facebook was "right" to put the warning label. But tbh, facebook doesn't care about anything but profits...
I have not read his books, but I do appreciate his views on nuclear power. I have several people in my family in the nuclear industry (nuclear engineers(2) and structural engineer in the industry) they have explained the new reactors to me and they are very safe. We need to build new reactors for clean energy for electric cars. It's inevitable that we will do it eventually, but my fellow left of center voters need to educate themselves.
There's never been real argument against nuclear. If you compind every death from nuclear energy, including every accident like Chernobyl and Fukushima. The dead toll is less then 10 000 person. Coal plant kill or agravate cardiovascular conditions in more then a 100 000 people a year. There was never a rational argument against nuclear energy.
@@robertj1777 not really though. Some biased anti-nuclear advocate say bullshit like "you don't know if someone in 10 000 yrs won't open our nuclear waste cache after society as collapse. We have to be responsible and not risk future life" this is bogus on so many level and a very big what if. There's already cave in the world, those we first extracted uranium in for example. That are radioactive enough to kill you if you stay in for too long. We can make the same cave for our waste and sleep well at night, at worst it'll kill less then 10 people before they realize this place is curse or something, let's forsake it. We should not avoid the fact that the deadliest isotopes will decay in relatively short period of time too. We know we can make these deposit safe for our society in the near future. The benefit greatly outweight the risk. There's really just bad public opinion against nuclear, no real tangible argument.
@@ieatfriedpikmin why doesn't RU-vid put context on people saying ivermectin as horse medicine when its been prescribed to billions and is used to treat covid in Japan
JRE entire episode 1719 was incredible. I'm a better person for having listened to it. The discussion on homelessness, its possible solutions, and the current political hesitancy to take any meaningful action was mind-opening.
@@monotech20.14 If he was a liar, they couldn't be asked because they'd be dead. He said that people don't die as much from natural disasters, not that they don't occur and destroy property.
Just because people won't die en masse doesn't mean it's not a serious threat to civilisation. Mass displacement and economic disruption have very real consequences and should be taken very seriously
Barri weiss is a PoS reporter who built her career on calling anyone who spoke out against israel's apartheid ethno state as a anti semite and trying to cancel them.
Definitely. Drugs have already won the so called "war on drugs”. Where there's demand, there's supply. Basic economics. Addiction has been around for thousands of years and always will be. It's a primal instinct and one of the most powerful one's.
I always find it funny seeing companies tell you in a commercial how much they care about you or that a food product has "real cheese" in it. Always view life through your peripherals instead of straight ahead. Reality is what it is not what someone else tells you it is.
Funny you say that. I wanted a foreign particular cheese that's made from fresh milk but I can't get it because it's currently under an import ban. But what I can get in absorbently large quantity is Walmart brand knock off made up of ingredients I can't pronounce.
@@Rafungilo it's big dairy The same reason why dairy was listed on the food pyramid and the healthy eating thing, my doctor recommended the Canada plate That has no dairy listed Dairy is not a needed nutrition, they're using their money to say that dairy is a needed nutrition And the evils of it I relate to what my dinner with Andre was about
This is what I’ve been trying to tell people, climate change is not as serious as it’s being made out to be stats show that the water levels were going to rise and when they do humans will just find somewhere else to live as humans have done since they began walking. Don’t be distracted. There are much more pressing issues needed to be addressed in todays society.
It's not a matter of sea level rising, it's a problem of temperatures rising or dropping beyond what is expect for each area, which will disrupt the economic and lifestyle activities in such places. For example, with a rise in temperatures, electrical networks will struggle to keep up as they will overheat sooner and fail, provoking blackouts, a whole lot of public infrastructure would need to be replaced. Harvests can also be ruined due to drought. Same kind of problem if somewhere temperatures would reach below zero suddenly, you can suffer agricultural losses by snow or hailstorms, roads blocked without access to equipment to clear them, pipelines freezing. It's a much wider problem than just a negligible sea-level rise.
@@danielmendezmartorell2790 Majority of Storms are created at the equator as they need warm water to produce, the equator is where the Sun hits Earth the most with light and heat. When temps rise, the warm water at the equator will be affected causing larger and more dangerous storms. In addition, hotter temps means more wild fires and droughts. Natural Disasters are just going to get worse and worse.
If people in charge cared about the climate, they'd ban personal jets, multiple 1000+ sq. feet per person homes, and other massively inefficient uses of fossil fuels. No, it's always us little guys that need to make some massive lifestyle change so they are not slightly inconvenienced. Kinda hard to convince me to walk or worry about sea level when I drive a tiny, efficient car for about 15 minutes a day and you're flying across the country, for the second time this week, in your own jet to your beachfront mansion.
Exactly. "Let's totally ignore one problem because this other problem of my choosing is much worse." He's probably bought and paid for by big oil companies.
Why instead of strawmaning his argument don't you steelman his arguments? It would give you some credibility at least. As a biochemical engineer and the former owner of a chemical production and distribution company, I'm much more worried about pollution than co2 levels (as of now, once and if we pass 2000ppm and people start falling asleep on the street while walking, then I'll consider it a bigger problem), specially given how little thought the average person gives to waste disposal. For example, a lot of countries say to dispose of medication by throwing it in the toilet, i see this as a disaster in policy, specially in coastal cities where a lot of the water recirculates several times before being dispersed into the ocean. But i won't focus only on governmental policy or people's idiocy, i also look at the bussiness i was in and think the same as i did back in the 80s when i started: "this is a mess, these people shouldn't be in charge of running these places, they are too irresponsible". Well, what do you know, 2 years later i was getting death threats because their places were being fined. Why? Because the inspectors were used to the disastrous conditions of their production plants, and when i set up a new and properly designed one, the inspectors realized just how low the stardards were and demanded a revamp of most of them. That's one case where the inspectors behaved like they were supposed to, but it usually doesn't happen this way, too much money going into their pockets and a lack of empirical standards to contrast with. To me, deforestation, destruction of habitats, ocean pollution, plastic pollution and particulate pollution are much more pressing issues than CO2 concentration. But sure, let's not focus on the actual contaminants that cause illness and birth defects, let's focus on CO2, something you are producing and every second of your life until you die, without any problem. If you want to be alarmists, that's ok, but at least pick something that is an actual immediate danger, plastics should be the big one, imo. I stopped using them for food in the 90s and can't believe that everything now comes in plastic wrapping, even fruits... I'm going to take an unpopular stance and blame the consumer, i don't buy that shit, but someone does, and that's the money that keeps the plastic flowing.
@@yonidellarocha9714 why do you think climate change is all about CO2 concentration? It isn't. It is about keeping temprature change below 1.5°C. Also that take on CO2 is like saying you'll treat cancer when it gets to stage 4.
“Why is it more attractive?” - because they can say, “Big global government is the only way to deal with this.” As someone who has no need for the new, irrational religions, I haven’t lost my ability to recognize this is all propaganda.
Some have no use for the new irrational religions but have very good use for the so-called “fact-based” rational religions that displaced the traditional religions in the enlightenment, like thinking any scientific proof that validates your argument is inherently true and unfalsifiable (just like the existence of God is for believers) and any other that refutes it is flawed. This isn’t necessarily directed at you, but to anyone who thinks they’re completely free of religious worship just because of their rational intellectual nature
@@alvareo92 Science is not a religion because it keeps improving itself. Studies are discarded all the time. Religions don't do that. Your religion doesn't. Some religions call themselves a philosophy but that too is false because philosophy is far too rigorous a discipline and the questions it asks can only be answered on the basis of reason. In the end, science gave us modern medicine and instant communication. All religion ever did was misinform people and demonize others.
Can someone link me to a pie chart that shows amount of time humans have been round with a percentage of the chart for the time we have measured climate?
They conveniently ignore past warm / cold periods. Everything is cyclical to a degree and I'm really not sure how they think we avert the next glacial period?
The guy is talking about the impact of climate change on Americans. That’s a very insular viewpoint. The world is a lot bigger than America, and people in poor countries that will suffer more are just as important.
Indeed. Have been to the places you mention particularity in S America. They are doing fine. As a matta fact, a better place to live in many aspects because of fresh organic natural produce growing. They also have old school natural fires that cleanses the environment; not intentionally set for the purpose you talk of. But, put all that aside -- the biggest problem I have with you and your millions of minions, is that not one of you ever EVER mention geoengineering that's been going on for 15+ years and is what actually created this problem and the acceleration of it, and is bought and paid for by the same 1% that control you now - today - with all this other stuff. Wake up---Look up.
@@EddyMcGuire What??? Droughts and floods are not getting worse around the world? Miami Beach and the Florida Quays will suffer badly from water level rises… along with every other coastal community around the world. But you are saying there is nothing to see here? 😂…. And as regards this geo engineering you mention, cite credible sources (no Fox News 😂) so we can all learn.
Look at the Denial, rather than the abundanceo f Evidence. Thats tbh even more telling. Hbomberguy and Climate-Town have looked at the People paying to fight the Science and muddy the Water and they look at CAUGHT Lies. I'd argue this is even better to find the truth than looking at the Thing Itself.
Truth! what got us here were the unilateral decisions made by the chemical, oil, auto, and insurance industries that decided our manufacturing, transportation and agriculture. If we focused the climate conversation on these people with trillions of dollars sitting there, waiting to be invested into new manufacturing, energy and transit we would employ millions with meaningful jobs, defend against crop shortages and property damage and improve society as a whole, with the new transportation tech. HSR would totally revolutionize the US economy.
@@driftlesshermit it's a big damn planet. There's plenty of real estate left. You're being hyperbolic to try and paint him as a loon, but you're only making yourself seem like a loon.
@@driftlesshermit “functionally extinct” you’re either stupid or one of those weird eco fascists. Probably both, I’m guessing you also want less humans and population control to “save the planet”.
@@foxooo No doubt. I see this not only with him but with many journalists too. It would be really great to hear incisive debate that could ferret out inconsistencies, etc. We'd actually learn more IMO.
He doesn’t need to challenge him because he’s speaking common sense. It’s only you leftists pansies that want to blow smoke about the “science” behind the climate change “crisis”
@@presceltolives2076 the one and only good thing about climate change is that people like you and everyone you love are going to suffer immeasurably just like the rest of us.
'Deaths from natural disasters declined' is exactly the 'misleading' part of this guys narrative. We got better at dealing with natural disasters, that's why there are fewer deaths, not because natural disasters are rarer now. It's like if it used to sprinkle a little and your clothes used to get wet in a slight drizzle of a rain, but now it's actually raining cats and dogs but you take an umbrella with u now. Sure you're dryer now than before cause of the umbrella. But you can't claim: 'see guys, it's raining less now cause I didn't get wet as much' No you doofus, it is raining heavy now, you were just under the umbrella and even that umbrella won't save you when that rain turns into a heavy storm, so you better do something about it now.
His bit about mass extinctions is flat out fake, too. He said some 6% of currently known species are in danger of becoming extinct. It's actually 1 million species out of the ~1.6 million that science has identified (with an estimated 8.7 million total species, most having not yet been scientifically identified). So his 6%, in reality, is anywhere from ~10% (of estimated species) or ~60% of known species.
He stated more than once that we’ve become better at dealing with the natural disasters and that’s why they’re less deadly. If you could maybe step back and take a breath maybe you’d hear what he’s trying to say is there are other problems. Bigger problems like deaths from drugs that nobody talks about because the left have done an amazing job once again at focusing everyone’s attention on the least tangible and most emotional problems. The amount of people who die from drugs and the amount of human trafficking that goes on in this country never gets talked about by the left because it’s easier to insight anger against conservatives over climate, racism and sexism.
@@damien7157 no we Should be talking about drugs AND human trafficking AND obesity AND climate change. I just watched the video again to see if I was letting bias effect my reasoning. I wasn’t. You’re taking one thing he said out of the context of the whole conversation and letting it eclipse everything else he says. First he qualified what he meant - by stating that we have become better at managing natural disasters but also by explaining how science predicts, unfortunately, more severe storms (by 5%) but also less frequent storms (by 25%). AND at 3:38 he even states very clearly that “climate change is real and something should be done about it” and then goes on to lay out his argument for why it just should not be the highest priority. (Practically the only priority) Do you see that you’re ignoring his whole argument because you caught him fudging one point? One which he immediately qualifies. There are a lot of things wrong and a lot of things to fix in this world panic and a myopic world view is not the best approach. Starting with it makes people crazy, it makes people hate and it makes people think they are doing good and making progress as long as they are on the “right” side of one single issue (while those suffering from the other issues are left to themselves) If you knew a good kid who died from fentanyl or a girl who had been abducted and trafficked I imagine climate change would slip from your top spot of priorities and you’d hear this guy’s argument a little different.
Mass extinction events are not just defined by the percentage lost during an event - this is good for looking at historical events not ongoing events. Species lost per given time is the way to measure ongoing extinction events and the current rates are higher than some the historical events which we now call mass extinction events. This guy has a very human centric approach on looking at the effects of a climate disaster. Saying that the number of deaths are decreasing describes more about increasing resilience by building better infrastructure for ourselves not that the disaster is less severe than before. Counting deaths and measuring infrastructure damage is not the accurate way of determining the severity of a disaster. I don’t like Facebook even a little bit, but I agree with their decision on calling his book as misleading. This person needs to talk to researchers in the field instead of making up his mind after reading stuff on the internet as we all can be biased at times and only like to take information that reinforces our biases.
"The current rates are higher than some the historical events" Source? The climate change issue is a political one. If the issue is so pressing why have we been pestered for years about our lifestyle despite making progress while third world countries are polluting more and more every years and nobody bats an eye. Same goes for ships as soon as they reach international waters. It's all a show. Like this guys said at the beginning, climate change alarmism is just one more thing people use to virtue signal and feel superior to others. We've been told constantly for the past 20+ years that "10 years from now will be the point of no return". Every time there is a heatwave somewhere people scream "cLimATE ChANge". Same thing with flooding, hurricane, ... whatever. It's ridiculous...
@@pronoe Right on brother. It's easy to tell what are the real issues and what are the made up ones. If the mainstream media is trying to make you care about something, then it's a non issue with a serious corporate agenda behind it. If they pretend it never happened, then it's something serious that we should definitely be talking about.
@@pronoe I agree third world countries like india and china are pollutiong more. 163 million indians don't have access to drinking water and 13% of indian homes don't have access to electricity. But they have to live without water and electricity since it's going to contribute to climate change. You guys don't need to change your living style like using public transport or using fuel efficient cars or maybe eating less meat. We the developing countries need to stop all development activities to ensure you guys live in comfort.
I can't help but feel like this guy doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Climate scientists aren't immediately concerned with human deaths and they never were. If you're presenting your argument against "alarmism" by saying that not that many humans are going to die within the next thirty years nearly every single scientist will agree with you. Even in some of our predicted worst scenarios it still won't directly amount to temperature or disaster related deaths. But what about agricultural economies? What about coastal fish harvesting economies? The US military predicted a total of 100B in damages from rising sea water to our naval bases by 2050. Agriculture is ALREADY extremely expensive and heavily subsidized. Global population is only going to keep increasing and as it stands there isn't a single nation on this planet that has developed large scale agricultural production without emitting large amounts of GHG. The economic consequences of this problem are going to catch up with us far sooner than anything else.
@@savagereality5622 You skeptics always think you're making such a profound point with this rich environmentalist argument. We've had concrete proof that cigarettes cause cancer and severe complications later in life and yet people still choose to smoke anyway. This back and forth has happened with every single environmental concern in the past 50 years. Sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide isn't causing acid rain! Chlorofluorocarbons aren't punching a hole through the ozone! Oh wait turns out they are but we'll never find a way to deal with it cost effectively! Oh wait we found a way to deal with it cost effectively once we were actually forced to!
I disagree that agricultural products are expensive. If people buy fresh produce from the grocery store, dry rice, dry beans, etc.. You can live and eat for pretty damn cheap. I think clean water and proper waste disposal is a bigger issue than air pollution but there are plenty of problems we need to solve. I think mono culture at an industrial level will lead to environmental consequences but also has led to cheap food etc... I think the problem is people are alarmists instead of just showing and solving problems.
@@savagereality5622 I'd suggest reading "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections" by Hausfather et al. if you want a detailed explanation of climate models and their accuracy. The short version is that slightly over half of some of the most well cited models were accurate within their expected error range. Hansen's 1988 model is one of the most interesting as it is often used by Fox and deniers to indicate how inaccurate models can be. However they almost always omit scenario B and C and choose only to reference scenario A which was considered to be the worst case scenario model. I hate to be rude and make assumptions here but between your comments on Al Gore, climate changing naturally, and models not being accurate I can't help but feel like I'm arguing with Fox news and Prager U talking points rather than someone that's actually read a study concerning climate change.
@@realityhittingme As I said it is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the US. So yes it looks cheap in a store but the reality of the situation is that maintaining and growing crops is extremely expensive and difficult to do. If it wasn't the farming industry wouldn't get billions of dollars every year.
@@savagereality5622 So the totality of your argument is that all of the information I've given thus far which was provided by individuals that have spent years in their respective fields is void and null. All because another single individual has written books that aren't peer reviewed or held to the same degree of academic integrity as published scholarly articles? Just about the only thing this guy and I agree with is that eventually we need to switch to nuclear power. His opinion about climate change not worsening wildfires and disaster events is exactly that, opinion. And don't tell me that you honestly believe that peer reviewed articles are fake news and then look to a single publishing author as the source of all your "well informed" opinions.
Pretty sure some "open" scientists found out it's not just the planet heating up, but the whole solar system is. It's cyclical and was even hotter here 2000 years ago than today. We can't prevent it, we need to adapt to it.
@@SuperBlueMoonWA you can complain about the government doing things you don’t like, or you can be an active community member, get into local government, advocate for certain politicians/political ideas, etc. That’s how the government works buddy, it’s just members of society who speak (or are supposed to speak) on behalf of their constituents…
Well i'm alarmed. My State is much warmer than when I was a kid. Way more 90+ degree summers with 70 degree dewpoints. Way more tepid winters with little to no snow. Lots of invasive species I never had to think about before causing rashes. Had to invest in a heat pump to keep up with this shit. Our State's power outages have risen considerably with the wild windy springs and autumn. Our ocean ecology is dwindling and moving further north. I can see it with my own two eyes. I don't need a book to tell me otherwise.
Not having access to Facebook isn't censorship. It's a private company. Just as a private building doesn't have to let you in. It's not a public square. Get a podcast ffs. Oh the irony. "I've been censored" says man giving a interview to a channel with over a million subscribers
Ok, Fuck Soros and the W.E.F., etc...yeah? But we have to be welcoming to disenfranchised democrats, who are trying to find sanity...how else will you build? Most people have been wrong or mislead at some point.
At 2:00, the only right thing to do as a host is say "So you weren't censored, you published unfounded claims and your post got tagged as containing misleading information?", then take the interview off air and only release the parts of it that aren't bullshit. What a drama seeker.
If you are smart and get the hang of things, you will realize that these warnings from Facebook and RU-vid always protect financial interests. There is tons of misinformation no one gives a crap about.
He needs someone on who isnt a useful idiot for fossil fuel corps on the podcast. Donziger would be great because he can also speak to the abuse of state power in favor of fossil fuel corporation and Chevron and Exxon's use of Pinkerton style disinformation campaigns, like Shellenberger seems to be a part of. Joe doesnt like when people lie to his face so I was surprised to see him go with the patently false biodiversity claims and saying there will be no extra deaths with natural disasters, two claims that can be checked in a second with a google.
@@Nameeejz Shellenberger is a massive proponent of nuclear energy and he's more generally an ecomodernist. You very clearly read nothing he writes if you dismiss him so thoughtlessly. Let me guess, you're also one of those people that think renewables are anything but expensive and unreliable wastes of time? Shellenberger at least proposes solutions that will actually work, unlike the absolute melt politicians and activists banging on about renewable energy and a "green new deal" solely as a means of implementing their ideological aims, effectively letting no crisis go to waste in their blatant partisan hackery.
@@GTJIGPC I agree nuclear energy is needed in a green economy. The misinformation about it is rampant. I dismiss Shellenberger's claims in this clip because they are clearly false. Shellenberger is spreading disinformation which happens to benefit Chevron and the oil oligarchs. How can anyone in good faith claim that there will be no extra deaths due to anthropogenic warming? These lies get people killed and frankly I would be happy to see people who make them be held accountable for manslaughter. The same should apply to the Exxon execs who made the choice to hide their knowledge about the threat of greenhouse gases and start a disinformation campaign to create doubt in the science that did not exist
@@Nameeejz I agree climate change will clearly have an impact on human life, and in a sense he's taking the license given to him by the extinction rebellion-like alarmists, and as result tempering our understanding of the dangers of the crisis too much. That being said, Shellenberger might be nuclear energy's greatest champion (among public intellectuals), and so as long as he's pushing back on the counterproductive renewable trend in favour of nuclear transition I'll accept his marginally inappropriate unalarmism. If the thrust of the green new deal was nuclear energy, we wouldn't need a Shellenberger, but unfortunately that's not the case.
"We're adapted really well to climate change" - actually we are not - the last 10000 years of the holocene which coincides with the rise of what we call civilization was actually quite an unusually stable part of the Earth's climate history. We simply have no idea how we would fare if the Earth's climate reverted to the wild swings of the pleistocene. All our agriculture and all our infrastructure and social organization is predicated on a level of climatic stability which is historically unique.
Bruh Air conditioning exists to create a better internal climate inside your house than outside. I think that’s pretty adaptive. We’re not gonna see this crazy change in how are world works for millions if not billions of years after humans.
This is doomism plain and square. While the latter part of your argument is correct, human adaptability is often underestimated, not overestimated. Economic, Monetary, Survival aspects play an important role. Data shows humans have adapted pretty well so far and with greater awareness and economic incentive, they will continue to do so even more. AND, damages from Hurricanes, Cyclones etc especially their long term trends on various aspects have a certainity of low probability( which doesnt mean we shouldnt care)
I rather fancy that Mother Nature is a little bit more difficult to defeat than by the actions of man. The planet adapts to change. It's a dynamic structure, constantly tweaking and adapting to maintain an homeostatic balance. There is NO 'man-made climate crisis'...!!! They've been scaremongering this crap since the end of the 19th century!!! Every decade or two = "we've only 10 years to live"...!!! The irrational scaremongering is relentless!
I've been giving Joe the benefit of the doubt for a long time but now he gives platform to professional climate change deniers? (Pretending that he believes in it but thinks it's not a big deal still makes him a denier). He's saying there's no Holocene extinction and his defense is that ONLY 6% of species are endangered? That's the estimated number for extinction of large animals, which doesn't take into account all the microorganisms that are endangered due to climate change, including all shell-making organisms, including diatoms, that will likely suffer if the ocean continues to acidify. And the mass extinction CONSENSUS takes into account the loss of biodiversity at an annual rate, which is happening at annual rates estimated to only happen during mass extinction events. That's why scientists say it's happening, it's because IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Imagine the hubris in pretending that burning the equivalent of hundreds of millions of years of sedimentation of organic matter in less than 200 years has no impact on the planet. Imagine seeing CO2 levels jump in less than 100 years to levels not seen since AT LEAST 2 million years ago and saying that this is not an issue? There is more than enough evidence showing that climate change will be catastrophic. The number of Americans that he quotes are in danger of dying from climate change is low, he says, while citing only the number of people estimated to die from weather events. Then he conveniently ignores that climate change is already causing droughts, which will get much worse in the next 20-30 years. Droughts lead to famines. Famines lead to mass migration and wars. That's where most of the mortality will come from. And this guy thinks in such simplistic terms that he can't even grasp the consequences of a messed up climate. It's like when Shapiro suggested that people living in low altitude coasts can just sell their homes when the sea level rises - it takes such a tremendous amount of either stupidity or disingenuity to make such a flawed statement. Pretending that 97%+ of climate scientists are in some sort of religious cult? Go ---- yourself. Shame on you Joe. The least you can do is have an actual climate expert now.
@@lovelife2062 "Stabilist" is not a word and even if it was it would be misspelled. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a biologist and got a PhD in a department with top climate scientists. So feel free to explain why the climate is stable when all research shows that temperatures are increasing and the weather is becoming more and more chaotic.
@@lovelife2062 Yes, because we're in an emergency. Hopefully you're too old to see the consequences of doing nothing (which is exactly what we're doing right now).
@@buckchile614 I'm afraid not. Phytoplankton generate over 60% of the worlds oxygen. Ocean acidification impacts their ability to develop and reproduce -- its why planktonic blooms are in decline.
@@Evolocean I think it's obvious that Big Oil et al. are responsible for the lack of nuance in the conversation. Don't ever forget it's not by accident. It's been a carefully curated debate for decades to distract the masses from the endless list of consequences. Thanks for the plankton info👍
Ocean acidification is what will kill the planet completely of all life. The health of the oceans plays a massive role in many functions of this planet.
"Natural disasters are not getting worse, we're just better at dealing with hurricanes and floods." This quote is what's misleading, both of those statements can be true. Natural disasters are ticking up in strength, we are better at dealing with natural disasters due to modern technology.
Not for long. Will the oil industry allow more hydrogen vehicles in more States? They’ll destroy the stratosphere before they let those effect their pocket books
@@babbakbukkak6515 No, by all measurements they are worse. 9 of the 10 lowest pressures (for people that don't know pressure correlates to strength of a system) happened in the last 25 years. They're getting stronger, we're also better at handling them. Both statements are true, and one doesn't have a correlation to another.
@@chiphenderson5213 So it's stronger but it's not worse because it's not as bad for us. You do realize climate must change, we can't have the same weather every year.
*"IT'LL GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER."* *- Swayze from Roadhouse 1989* *(Does ANYONE understand my point here? If so, do explain it.)* *_p.s._* *_I have designs at my online souvenir shop mostly based off of film and entertainment prophecy that's coming and/or that's already here. I design them to help real eyes realize real lies. If anyone's curious, lemme know in the comments._*
You either go with science or not. If you're not with science, you have a "different opinion" than science - you're wrong. Is the subject of global warming "politicized"? Yes. Guess what, every big issue that needs to be solved and requires big amounts of resources from taxpayers, will need to be "politicized" in order to be solved. Because that's how you organize money to solve big issues. No other way. If the right wing doesn't understand science than what can we do about it? There will always be room for opposite politicians simply because it's lucrative, no matter how dumb unscientific their beliefs, politicians will go there, like the right wingers do - for the money. Since there is public to hear them willingly.
Scientists are censored and vilified for challenging climate change. They have more to lose challenging climate change. There is way more money to be made supporting climate change than challenging it. To say they do it fit money proves you know nothing. It’s not having a “different opinion”. It’s wanting to see a debate between real scientists. Blaming right wing proves you are not interested in debate, you have been gaslighted in to believing. Which is where shellenberger is 100% correct. Climate change is the new modern day religion, you believe. You don’t support scientific facts, you support science that validates your belief.
It's difficult to actually define because it fits many topics but simply put: The rejection of ANY narrative, factual or not, apart from narrowly defined sanctimonious progressive narratives that are based on fringe case statistics only and whom do not consider the overall consequences of running a country or the world. (Think cops killing black people when most black people die from other black people or Climate alarmism when there's stuff right now killing way more people like the North Korean and Chinese dictatorships)
People with a limited or misinformed perspective of history who've been misled into a worldview deliberately crafted for them, which hinges on fostering social division under the guise of humanism. Often adopted by those severely lacking in self awareness, who lean toward authoritarianism and end up promoting the very things they claim to be against (hypocrisy). People with fragile egos who can't bear to be proven wrong (i.e., the hallmark of narcissism), so will fly into rage or sulking tantrum when faced with evidence that counters their preconceived beliefs. Usually the result of unresolved trauma; their unacknowledged shortcomings & flaws are instead projected out onto everyone else (e.g., closet racists pointing fingers at others as deflection).
Am I the only one that feels this guy is completely missing the point of climate change? Looking at the natural disaster deaths in 2021 is such a near-sighted deflection of the actual concern which is the irreversible destruction of our planet, habitats, resources, and food systems. Looking at the "now" is not appropriate when the real issue is 50, 100, or even 200 years down the road.
I think an important consideration for this how accurate the predictions are. The predictions are dire. However, the predictions aren't new. Experts have been making predictions for many decades. It's important to compare predictions that have been made, where the deadlines have already passed, and compare the prediction to the actual, real result. If they are close, then those making the predictions are to be believed. If they are way off, then it's clear we're dealing with a different phenomenon. For example, if a climate scientist made a prediction in the late 1980s that sea level would rise by nearly 9 feet, submerging most of lower Manhattan by the year 2018, while the actual sea level rise turned out to be around 3 centimeters for that term, it would suggest that the scientist really didn't understand what they were talking about, or that they may have been seeking to illicit a specific response independent of reality.
It's impossible for the planet to stay static - it has to get hotter or colder over time. I'd choose hotter out of the two; an ice age would be devastating.
Apologise to Candace Owens now. This is basically the same point she made. She may not have worded it as well as this guy, but she talked about political and financial incentives.
'natural disasters are not getting worse, deaths from natural disasters have declined over 90%' This statement is completely misleading. He's defining 'worse' by death count, not number, duration or financial cost, all of which are getting worse. This is exactly why Facebook put a warning, because its a narrow definition of 'worse' that neglects the reality and frames it in deaths - which are obviously declining as we have weather mapping and procedures that help us prepare to minimise death. This is why this dude is a joke of a guest and already copped all the criticism he deserved for his cash-grab book.
A warning that says a store disagrees with the scientific accuracy of a book is different from "censorship" ... They are literally still letting him sell his book in their store.
Couldn't agree more, there's so much hard science on the dangers of mass CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, anyone suggesting anything to the contrary is an obvious charlatan.
Notice how any conversation about climate change in the MSM quickly becomes one about oil and separating you from your internal combustion engine vehicle? Notice how any conversation about "Russia's war in Ukraine" in the MSM quickly becomes one about oil and separating you from your internal combustion engine vehicle? If you're still not understanding my point, then read the book "Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth Deffeyes that came out in 2000. He's also written some follow up books.
Are you serious? Do you even READ the scientific evidence? There is an overwhelming amount of data from reputable sources that conclusively demonstrate the human-driven effects of climate change. And to make matters worse, your comment is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to push an outdated and discredited agenda. Please, for the sake of the planet and our future generations, do us all a favor and get with the times old man.
@@strawwagen I get bombarded with the scientific 'evidence' every damn day. YOUR version of the story is the agenda, but the truth is the world is running out of oil and twerps like you are being brainwashed to believe a climate catastrophe is your fault and you have to do the bidding of your masters to avoid it. Why did the last ice age end? Why are there serious discussions about bringing more nuclear power online when historically it's been villified by the same people who are now touting it? Why is one state after another proposing internal combustion engine bans by the mid 2030's which by complete coincidence is the same period in which we are projected to really start feeling the pain of fossil fuel shortages? "By the 2070's, there won't be anything left worth having" - Shell Oil. Austria doesn't give up on fracking an oil well until what comes out exceeds over 90% by volume of what they pump in to retrieve the last remaining oil. Wake up brainwashed minion. Age is wisdom. I've seen a lot more years and seasons go by than you, and the climates barely any different now than it was in the 70's. There were hot summers, cold winters, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, ice storms, etc., etc. back then (and centuries beforehand) just like now and for many years to come.
