Should I be terrified of climate change? 

Empowerment requires to acknowledge the problem, and then spend the effort to educate yourself about possible solutions, and then being capable of doing your part in coming closer to a solution. In my experience people are very ignorant about climate change, because they fear inconvenient changes to their lives and their personal beliefs (including questioning past behavior - involving questions of self-esteem) and are too lazy to educate themselves.

​@@danielh.9010Empowerment as I see it requires that you feel you can do something meaningful, and that's the problem. Anyone who understands markets knows that their refusal to use FFs will drive down prices for those who those who don't, and increase their economic advantage, and their efforts could vanish. If truly good options were identified people saw they could do, I think a lot more would get done.

Unfortunately empowerment has been made impossible by an alliance between industry and politics that ensures the general public is impotent against the will of the rich ruling class. One side champions vitriol and skepticism towards experts, one side postures themselves as the solution and opposition while cutting deals with industrialists under the table, and paying lip service to the concerned public by implementing half-measures that actually end up including fracking subsidies anyway.

@@OmnipotentNoodle It's not impossible. Please stop this doomer rhetoric. Fewer and fewer communities are willing to tolerate fracking, actually, as its true costs become more and more obvious.

large groups do not react like individuals do, buddy.

And they are urged to consume more because what difference does it make if it's too late. I've seen this a lot from young people lately. They are filled with loathing for humanity for destroying the planet for the other animals and see us as no more than a virus that needs eradicating. And they really, really love cheap fast fashion.

I have a different issue: Most people seem to be in denial over climate change. They are not sufficiently concerned to take any remedial action. Climate change is also the hardest kind of problem for humans to plan for. The damage creeps up slowly but can become irreversible. The best analogy I can offer is the Titanic. We are on the Titanic now. A few people have spotted the iceberg ahead, but the ship has massive momentum towards the danger, and does not respond quickly to moving the rudder. What will happen?

If people weren't manipulated in 100 ways for political, marketing, and other nefarious purposes, we likely wouldn't be here anyway. Now that the American Government has been taken over, Climate change is secondary to them destroying everything.

@@russmarkham2197 Titanic is a great analogy. The problem with the Titanic is precisely that avoiding manoeuvres were made, allowing the iceberg to rip open the side of the ship which was not designed for impact, causing it to sink. It was designed to hit icebergs head on and would easily have coped with hitting the iceberg, so if no change in direction was attempted, the iceberg would have been the one to suffer and the ship would have stayed afloat albeit damaged. In this analogy, the titanic is society, the iceberg is climate change, and manoeuvring is diverting funds into avoiding climate change away from mitigation. We may have to hit the iceberg head on and mitigate instead of trying to avoid the iceberg, as it is too late to do that for the reasons you outlined. Denial has nothing to do with it.

It's counter productive in every way. The other issue is, all this fear mongering has failed to manifest. We've long since passed every timeline benchmark and the earth is still habitable and society still functions. So the fear mongering now hits as propaganda and doesn't resonate. If we go by the fear mongering from 2016, then we have long since passed the point of no return. I see fear mongering as entirely unproductive. The reality is we don't know how bad things will get or when. We have guesses. And lastly, fear mongering doesn't work because you and I have no influence over climate change. But governments do. The US military is among the largest polluters in the world but Americans will still support every proxy war. Including funding Ukraine endlessly. But also tell you to recycle. All fear mongering falls flat in that absurd paradigm.

Nice one

Overwhelming is a strategy to invoke a fear response. The US armed forces calls the tactic "Shock and Awe". Unfortunately no one trusts the things experts say anymore because they are all taking money under the table from various special interest and political groups.

no matter how overwhelmed you are, there is no excuse for voting Republican. Voting for them or similar right wing parties, will hasten the end, as they hand in hand with capitalism destroy this beautiful earth

YES... 👍 The Establishment seems to be promoting "Learned Helplessness" in the Population at large : ( -70SomethingGuy

Its funny that you think Democrats actually help the environment. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. @@declanwk1

Right Wing means not sucking up to the Left wing liars. There are two genders. Biological fact. Your mental health is not defined by what others think. The government does not owe you a living. The climate is not being overheated by CO2.

New fears are needed periodically -- like global cooling.

That's a scary thought. 😱

@@tinman1955on the bright side, you will get used to it.

... and then when people try to use fear to push people for long-term solutions.

PTSD anyone?

Every decade the experts are certain that climate warming has got out of hand and then next decade they just figure that they were wrong and repeat the loop.

@@Munakas-wq3gp And then they declare everyone stupid who doesn't "believe in science". If there weren't people like Sabine, science had the same reputation as homeopathy. She separates the wheat from the chaff and restores confidence.

@@gzoechiDenial is about forgiving oneself for not becoming better minded even in the face of innumerable declining ecological indicators.

But human stupidity exists and it does seem to increase. And it is preventing our societies to perform the necessary changes. Which easily can lead to huge catastrophes. As it did in the past. Nobody can predict the future. Climate change might end civilization or even humanity. It might not. Anyhow, it would be wise to do a little more to slow down the warming…

All our existential problems were caused by smart people.

So right, we need hope, not fear to do the best.

Fear is the best guidance system that keeps you and other sentient beings alive in the present moment. It's lousy as a long term problem solving strategy, that's all.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.

if fear was that lousy you wouldn't be able to feel it

Fear exists for a reason. It is a great motivator. Panic on the other hand is what you are describing, and it is a useless hangover from our biological past.

The emotional manipulation and fearmongering has come *1000 times more* from big oil funded propaganda than from scientists. For example, think what a terrified little boy someone would have to be in order to believe climate change was invented by china to emasculate the west.

I am not terrified of climate change itself but rather the wars it is likely to lead to as the worlds land resources gets reshuffled. The thought of my grandkids dying in a climate change induced conflict horrifies me.

@@jimgraham6722so you’re terrified of climate change

@@kevinbeck8836 wars we I'll happen

@@jimgraham6722 Wars would happen regardless. Populations tend to grow exponentially until there are no longer more resources than the population needs/wants.

After 200 years I'm still waiting for Thomas Malthus (or anyone else) to admit that he was wrong. But in the meantime the worlds population and average standard of living has just gone up and up since he made his predictions, and we have more food and energy today than we ever have had before. I find it curious that so many people latch on to consistently disproven ideas. But it is unfortunately very clear that then there is power is scaring people.

@@jehl1963 We are over-exploiting the resources, that's why we have more food and energy than we could ever need and throw half of it into the trash, even tho more than half of the world is still underdeveloped.

@@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters Yes. It's unfortunate that half of any distribution will be less than the average. But it is a mathematical reality.

It's going to be bad, no way around it. Humans will continue to make the same mistakes. I think the West will wake up and change their way more, but the rest of the world won't. Long story short, climate change is inevitable and the world will pay. Humans will continue to use up all the available resources as they have for thousands of years. Eventually the oil will run out. There will be wars and mass migration, we'll just have to deal with it. Life will go on (for most).

@@jehl1963 Have you seen the boats that people crowd onto even to cross from safe France. They are the early refugees (at least in part) of environment change. They risk all to aquire your life-style millions are dying enroute.

with you on that

there isn't enough Uranium for everyone

@@saarbrooklynrider2277 then use thorium

​@@saarbrooklynrider2277uranium is like 800x more common than gold

'fewer and fewer' , teffired? There is an edit button.

Ethics but no sense.

🤦‍♂️ "why can't we just have a leader who inspires....".... great, totally realistic and helpful point. Waaahhh....why can't we just.....🤦‍♂️... How about "why can't we just stop polluting"?????? Same reason.

yeah it shouldn't be scary to do the right thing!! that frustration your feeling, that is the energy you SHOULD share with your community! make pacts with your close ones to join a green movement

Yes, why can't we. In the mean time, it just looks like we can't.

The issue is that the human brain gets triggered by fear (emotion) and not by logic. There are so many examples of us humans watching things go wrong, but as long as we don't feel threatened immediately, our reptile brain will save energy.

The main problem is that looking at most problems in a stark and rational way breaks Western Civilization's ideology. Since the wars, the West has assumed that everything is win/win. no one loses, and the pie is infinite. All "action" has a winner and loser. We can't solve the climate change problem, because we can't tell China and India to stop building coal plants, because it wouldn't be "fair". We can't build nuclear power plants, because no one want's them in their backyard, nor want's the waste transported and buried in their backyard. Politicians can only offer solutions where everyone wins and no one loses....of course, such solutions are imaginary.

Don't you think the problem's solution would almost have been implemented already, if the scientists would have got the trust you speak of they might lose?

@@thiemokellner1893 No, trust is a currency, not a reagent. It buys goodwill, not scientific acumen.

@@thiemokellner1893 I'm struck by the fact that "climate science" doesn't have a foggy clue what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is (another name for CO2 global warming potential) . A pretty big problem since they literally define each and every emission by it's CO2 potential equivalent. Pretty big clue that global warmers need to sit down and shut up. Forty years on (or is it fifty? A 130 years since Arrhenius was laughed out of the building for proposing it in the first place) and these idiots still haven't worked out the definitions of common terms central to their fairey tale.

yup, destroys all credibility. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.

Yes, look about the progress we made appealing to their rational. Impressive right? Let's face it, we'll have to drag the baboons in the next century kicking and screaming.

Currently the most probable outcome is 3 degrees in 200-250 years (edit: starting from 1850-1900). 3 degrees globally, i.e. less over oceans, more over continents (because water has a high heat capacity and oceans are deep). Could easily be like 6 degrees (annual average) for certain regions. Which could easily be additional 10 degrees during a summer heat wave. So time is not the only dimension that's part of the problem you've mentioned.

@@danielh.9010The current rate of warming is around 0.2c per decade, which puts us close to +2c by 2050 and +3c by 2100 unless all the nice words get turned into effective actions - which they won’t. We’ve spent 50 years building our current socioeconomic model and it’s not going to get unwound fast enough. I like to point out that Boeing and Airbus alone have aircraft orders that will mean tens of thousands of aircraft still flying well beyond 2050, when we’re supposed to have hit ‘net zero’.

I wonder if out Latin name should be changed to Homo Insipiens?

Yes, that's why humans with short lives cannot remember that actually the planet is cooler now than it was during several periods of human history. eg: 900-1300 ad (that's a few-hundred-year time period. Me oh my! How did the planet ever survive!?...wait what? We thrived? This was the time the West began to push past the Dark Ages? And the Middle East was the centre of education? And China was flourishing? hmm. Who knew - balmy temperatures are good?)

@@AlexAnder-rv1gu Ha... as if on queue... Yes, always brought up by skeptics, the Medieval Warm Period. Quite controversial as to whether it actually existed or not and whether it existed outside of the north Atlantic and European regions... There are some historical anecdotes regarding increased agricultural productivity in Europe during that time, but little documented information regarding what happened in the rest of the world... positive or negative... mostly due to the state of human development. And there is no argument that minor global warming may be beneficial to some regions of the planet... however that same level of warming could be devastating to other regions... why I wouldn't be investing in any Florida coastal real estate.

We all wish it were true...

Lol

Informational space is contaminated overall. One more problem to solve in the future.

​​@@sdjhgfkshfswdfhskljh3360 the decontamination of politics and science is happening at the same time too. It's also more about better communication of biases and individual responsibility to not be an asshole as a politician, or to not be misleading as a scientist, which will become easier as we get better structures for how we put people in power, and more universal confirmations of the legitimacy of studies, making it perminantly obvious when things are wrong, because then people will be forced to learn in order to get success.

Yeah like even people I've heard say smart things are giving reason to avoid their arguments cuz their explanations and added claims are bs because they feel like getting the message out the easy way. This is why you can't trust a reactionary until you know their strategy.

@@gollossalkitty Yes. "Informational space" has been very contaminated at least since Virgil wrote the Aeneid and told us that Rumor flies faster than Truth ... I wasn't alive when Walter Cronkite supposedly magically fixed this issue through TV, but we don't need to reanimate him. Anybody can be a reliable source about what is happening right in front of them and they should not have to pay for a blue checkmark to be treated as such.

Trust in science is falling through the floor and its entirely the fault of these activist, agenda-driven 'scientists.'

Yes. The only way to know what is most likely real is to make an effort to understand the science and check carefully the credibility of the scientists especially any connection to the fossil fuel industry. This is not easy to do, but if you have some kind of science background it's easier.

here is a fairly accurate and easy to follow youtube video: They Will Never Tell You The Truth About Climate Change ... And For Good Reason

Well, ONE side hired the same companies that managed to hide for a couple more decades that tobbacco was killing millions of people. Hope that helps?

If you want to do your part, just consume (buy) less. That's all. That is the way to solve pollution abroad (where the majority comes from) and to reduce end-of-use refuse in our own landfills at home. Also, if you live in Canada, petition your local politicians to stop salting the earth -- I mean, salting the roads all winter. We never used to do this, it is an aggregious act against the future (as it takes decades for that salt to build up in the earth, but once it's there, it will take longer still to flush out). And our politicians do NOT care because it's not their right-now problem.

"It's a slow process. Which we call active measures . The first stage being demoralisation . It takes from 15-20 years to demoralise a nation. The next is destabilisation . What matters is essentials, economy, foreign relations, defence systems. The next stage is crisis . Followed by a violent change of economic structure & politics. Finally, there is a period of normalisation It will last indefinitely." KGB defector, yuri bezmenov.

Yes, and "terrified" does not mean we have to be screaming in terror rather than urgently seeking to take action. That seems like a bad faith interpretation. As can be seen in the comments. the way Sabine's piece can be easily taken is that it is scientists, not big oil funded propaganda, that should be castigated for bombarding us with emotional manipulation.

because you're uneducated

@@peterd9698 Acknowledging realities, and being reasonably horrified by what they mean, isn't emotional manipulation, in my book. And the later we wait the worse it will get, increasingly horrifying, or terrifying, or whichever word you prefer. Future generation will curse those that live now, and could have taken action, but did nothing, or far too little, too slowly. This is going to badly hurt people in the N. America and Europe too. But just the poor ones, The ones that don't count when it comes to making and following climate policy,

Imagine having loads of kids when you can't feed yourself and then being surprised they will starve. Giving them aid will just produce even more starving and suffering.

imagine not understanding science and engineering: that would be you. man will never run out of energy for centuries to come if not for millions of years@@TeslasMoustache419

lol, nice one.

2 years ago I moved from City center to city border, what a relief! Summer are such a joy here and it's only 7km difference.

Most of the current warming trend (since we are coming out of the last ice age) occurred before the industrial revolution, lol. Political "$cience".

Hey, wait a minute... I see what you did!

Neither is, or will be true.

There's some joke not quite the same as that that I don't much remember. It's like a bloke gets his arm stuck in a revolving door and yells "Fire ! Fire !" Some bloke runs over & says "Where's the fire ?" and he says "My arm's stuck", "Why did you yell Fire !". "Would you have rushed to help me if I shouted "Revolving door ! Revolving door !". I know, it's cheesy because there's "Help !". I still think it's funny.

I, for one, am concerned about a shortage of cheese.

If only that were true we wouldn't have ULEZ and all the other climate boolox.. Mass forced sales scams using ultimate doom. No better than death cults / religious profiteers with brainwashed flocks. It's not just fake-greens, it's fake-pharma, fake boobs, fake bots and fake hyper-science in general.

They'll care if the AMOC shuts down.

and blame others@@incognitotorpedo42

This is why they shld be terrified (vb)

Too many folks thought he was writing instructions instead of satire and warnings.

Global warming is most definitely not imaginary.

Like being alarmed that climate change is nothing but a Chinese conspiracy? (A Chinese conspiracy to invest more in green energy than the US?)

What about the few real emergencies? Should we not address them?

Americans are terrified of immigrants and transsexuals. Scientists might as well get them scared about something important

I think you're a little off the mark. First you express a disdain for personal opinion without actual scientific studies. You then state "It's the only thing that actually works." - sounds like opinion to me. "Fear actually evolved exactly for that purpose: to get people into action and to get them to move." I do agree that fear is a useful evolutionary trait... in a moment. The wind is howling and thunder is booming. Let me find shelter - now. A bear/wolf/giant animal with teeth is approaching. Let me escape to a safe place - now. Trying to apply fear to a complex social and environmental issues where the problems and solutions take decades to manifest... I'm not sure how you concluded fear is the only way forward. Fear gives you a boost of adrenaline. Fear grabs you an in instant. Fear does not make you rational. Running from a bear is not recommended, as you incite a chase you are unlikely to escape. Often victims of violent crimes freeze, being unable to remove themselves from harm's way when in fear for their lives. Violent confrontations often escalate out of control due to fear.

I suggest you consider the affect of continental drift on arctic ice and the oceans. As Asia and North America move towards each other, eventually colliding in the Pacific to form "AMASIA", a new continent. Look at a map of the Pacific and look where the waters of the Pacific Ocean are being directed: North to the Arctic and South West towards the Indian Ocean. What happens as the warm waters of the Pacific contact the cold waters of the Arctic? Consider also the drift of Africa towards India. What is happening to the waters of the Indian Ocean as Africa moves towards India? I conclude that it's driving up sea level, swamping islands along the way.

What would the “action” entail?

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.

@@SoloRenegade I think at the end of the tale there really is a wolf...............

@@russmarkham2197 but not always. and in this case there is no wolf. there has been no wolf for 200yrs. CO2 does not work the way they claim. food production is increasing as CO2 increases. Plants are growing in deserts more as CO2 goes up. Plants grow bigger and faster as CO2 goes up. Plants need less water as Co2 goes up (stomata). CO2 has a diminishing effect on temps, due to the logarithmic effects. Plants cool the planet.

@@SoloRenegade we are doomed

@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 you are doomed. I am not.

Total common sense

Ironically, she doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. She made a whole video about it

I'm near certain that you'll not come across Sabine stating that it is fine if corporations spread misinformations so you did what's called "Strawman". Sabine's doing a "curse on both your Houses" which is exactly what I did in 2015 when I discovered that your House existed after knowing of only the other House (the hovel that Charlie & Dead Dave Koch own) since January 2013. Which is why all science opinions from me are banned since a few years ago on a rather-eclectic "Channel" mix of "Paul Beckwith", "Heartland Institute", "Nick Breeze", "Jordan Peterson". Sabine's yelling "Both of you just cut it out you liars".

@LETIshNick Why is everyone so concerned about being lied to? We've been lied to for the past 50 years. Showing us how threatening this is to human life is not to cause an emotional reaction but to inform people. Let's unpack some points: Sabine initially criticizes the use of fear to drive climate action, but later highlights their own concern about alarming climate trends. This inconsistency suggests a lack of clarity on the effectiveness and ethics of using fear as a motivational tool. Sabine expresses disapproval of the idea that scientists should only inform people, suggesting they should not manipulate emotions. However, scientific communication often involves presenting data in ways that are understandable and relevant to the public, which may include considering emotional implications. The video mentions various theories about the cause of the temperature anomaly in the North Atlantic but then sarcastically suggests that "no one knows" and makes a joke about aliens. This approach undermines the seriousness of scientific research and ignores the complexity of the climate system. The video highlights studies suggesting a possible underestimation of global warming by current climate projections but does not address studies that may provide different perspectives or challenge these conclusions. This can lead to a one-sided view of the scientific debate on climate change. While Sabine criticizes the use of fear to motivate climate action, they themselves offer an incentive (covering the first month of subscription) to support a conservation organization. This suggests an inconsistency in evaluating the effectiveness of motivational strategies.

@@felipedanovaableThis looks very much like a lazy chatgpt response to criticize Sabine, but ok I'll engage with it 1. "Alarming trends" is your own interpretation, she just showed known trends, and pointed out which of those are agreed to be from climate change vs other causes 2. I agree, but I'm not Sabine lol 3. She joked that "no one knows" because there is no agreed upon most significant causes for the warming of the north atlantic, and I agree with her: we don't really know yet why the north atlantic warmed up so much this year, we just know it did and have some guesses why. Also saying Sabine "undermines the seriousness of scientific research" is clearly a sign of not having engaged with her style of communication before. She's sarcastic, bro, that's her thing. 4. I can't be sure but I don't know of any. She has been covering these kinds of studies, from both sides, throughought the history of her channel, and the most significant recent findings are about underestimation of climate effects, not otherwise. 5. uuhhhh.. her proposed action is not motivated by fear. Climate change is a real problem, well known by scientists and the public, and you don't need to be fearmongered into taking action against it (that's her whole point). Her suggestion for action is one she considers effective and worth sharing with her audience. The internet is such a toxic place lol

It is not fine that corporations spread misinformation, but it's kind of expected given their unaligned interests (direct profit vs long term wellness for humanity). It doesn't mean we must not call out on it and fight agaisnt it. Scientists however are supposed to support only facts and objective knowledge, so engaging in fearmongering is against their supposed interests, and Sabine being a scientist is well within her field of knowledge and opinion, to share her concerns in a mass communication channel where she is trusted for her background.

What a stupid strawman argument to justify fearmongering Who said it's fine if corporations spread misinformation? Neither corporations nor scientists /individuals/ institutions... nobody should spread misinformation.

Whatever people's motivation, it's the end result that matters

This is it. This is why we have drifted onto the path of our own destruction. Weve replaced community and nurturing the natural world with the endless pursuit of wealth and consumption. Competing and stepping on each other to try and "win" the race, rather than cooperating for the good of everyone. Because those who have "won" now have so much wealth that they can influence media and government, they use that wealth to do everything in their power to maintain the status quo, and maintain that power, even though that same status quo is leading all of us to our doom.

At what point do you say we lost connection to the natural world?

Disagree. That just gives people (who most likely you agree with) a pass on using emotional manipulation to achieve a goal. If it was a position you didn't support, you would likely bemoan the use of manipulation to achieve a goal. Classic Machiavellian ends justify the means approach. No, the answer is always factual data presented rationally, and let people decide what is best for them and their friends and family.

@@msromike123 What do you do persuade people who continually discard facts that don't fit their narrative? I think you need some other method other than just presenting the facts. So many people don't trust science and scientists these days. They don't consider facts that come from science and scientists to be unbiased.

I agree! But should scientists meddle in it? I think it's a bad idea.

@@SabineHossenfelderYeah, not scientists. We need some kind of intermediary.. someone who knows both the science and methods of communicating it to people who don't ordinarily trust science.

Exactly, we need more scientists like Sabine, but we also need peope like Greta, who are the figurehead to navigate feelings.

The laws of physics don't care about your feelings. If you step off the edge of a cliff Nature will handle you as gently as it would handle a stone.

Sounds like OP doesn't care about your feelings either.. 🤣🤣

@@Dr.JustIsWrong it is a mistake that anyone imagines that they have free will and it is this mistake that compels people to imagine that with the right messaging humans are going to change, it is in fact the central flaw in all religious manners of thinking (if you believe you will change). Humans are biological robots and they aren't going to stop destroying the Earth just as if you happen to get cancer it won't stop voluntarily in order to save your life (you are the host so your survival is actually vital).

Yes. We should be very very afraid of 0.04%. 🤫😂

I think that you are supposed to be afraid of the things that the elites controlling the media tell you to be afraid in particular season, even if they run wild parties during lockdown or go on private jet to conference...

The smarter you are the better you can confirm your delusions.

Academics live in bubbles, which is why we tend to self congregate. Trying to convince an uneducated moron is pointless.

I've reached the same conclusion regarding my relatives. They're simply uninterested in facts, and they refuse to educate themselves on the topic - even if you hand them printouts from Wikipedia or documentations on an USB stick. This is the opposite of rational behavior. So I think it's very understandable when scientists no longer count on rational behavior.

Don't watch Jordan Peterson. I guarantee you will have better days in the future.

Scare tactics helped slow the smoking epidemic.

How come every time it was the hottest year on record it was after or doing when carbon admissions were reduced

@@osmosisjones4912 Even when we (ocasionally) reduce carbon emissions we don't reduce the amount of carbon in the air. It keeps growing. It is the difference between stock and flow, function and derivative...

We need to move quickly to head off the effects of man made climate change. The sooner the better. All hands on deck on this problem. There isn’t a problem about people in a panic about global climate change. I’m more worried about people thinking we can do anything to stop the progression of man made climate change or the problem is a hoax. It will be easier to stop using fossil fuels then removing green house gases from the atmosphere. We will need 3X times more energy to clean this mess up and to maintain a standard of living. This energy can’t come from burning fossil fuel. Period

@@osmosisjones4912 Admissions? Is carbon getting into college? Wrong in any case bud.

This. This times 1000. Well, at least she'll still have her integrity as a scientist when the poop hits the fan.

40? LOL. try 100

Sure... because no one ever tried manipulation before. Your motivations are purer than the driven snow and so your means are justified. Excellent doctrine mein herr.

Fully agree, people don't change their behaviour because of facts, it's only because of emotions. Every smoker knows that it's unhealthy but chances are a million times higher they will stop smoking once someone they love dies of lung cancer

uh, wrong. people do change their behavior all the time because of facts. they also change their mind because of emotions. @@moritz7179

Yeah, my first thought was "sure, but people aren't going to are they?" :-/

we also all need to sit down and think rationally about the UFO threat

@echelonrank3927 invoking something that isn't a threat does not prove that nothing is a threat...

but the problem is most people don't have a clue how bad things are. how do you suggest we get them to wake up?

@@raduungureanu2080 thanks for asking. Since you can’t control others, nor should you, live by example and be an advocate for change in your own community would be my answer. Also, the real problem isn’t that most people don’t have a clue I would argue. It’s that they have been lied to by well meaning scientists repeatedly fudging the numbers to make things look worse than they really are. Not to mention the money motivated carbon credit scheme. The credibility has been lost to the point that I don’t trust that climate change is actually a problem; however, we have an obligation to take good care of our planet so we should still be striving towards environmentally friendly and supportive practices imho

Thx for highlighting the fear mongering in the other direction.

"Most people don't understand climate change" To be honest here you'd have to say "Most people don't understand climate change, not even climate scientists" and "most people don't understand anything at all about reality too" You will never change world policy based on some scientific argument. It has to be an economic solution first. People driving around multi-ton vehicles for grocery runs and picking kids from school was never rational. You cannot begin of talking of energy management or CO2 management when you cannot tell people to start walking again, especially if they're overweight, or stop using plastic for convenience and only use it for its efficiency. Or stop flying for leisure. Society is too far gone from any rational method of existence and life since industrialization began. They will take any call to rationality, climate aside, as nothing more than an assault on their livelihoods and common sense. The economy, now built on phantom "liquidity" much larger than its real value would implode overnight worldwide. To fix anything you need to fix the economy.

@@Overt_Erre > To be honest here you'd have to say No, to be "honest" (ie: spend way too many words for a RU-vid comment because pedants are annoying), I'd have to say something along the lines of: "Most people don't understand climate change knowledge that climate scientists have already learned." I'm not saying there's some magic coven of scientists that have 100% knowledge of the earth's climate. But you're trying to push the idea that not having 100% knowledge is basically equivalent to having exactly 0% knowledge, and that is patently false. "We" (as a species) do have a significant amount of knowledge about climate change. _You_ (as an individual) probably don't. That's why we have the concept of experts - people who have as much knowledge as its possible to obtain about a specific subject so that the rest of us don't have know absolutely everything about everything. Trouble is, experts have a habit of being right more often than not. Unfortunately there are big-money companies with a vested interest in destroying the planet for the sake of short-term profits. They have spent literally _decades_ doing everything they can to point out the times when the experts were wrong and discount the times when they were right. But that's almost entirely propaganda. The experts have _not_ been wrong nearly as often as they've been right, and most of the times they _have_ been wrong boils down to one of two major categories: 1) The reality ended up being _worse_ than the predictions. Frequently this comes around because the experts intentionally downplay the risks in order to minimize the ability for those vested interests to write them off as "fearmongering". 2) Nations around the world (particularly the US given their role as "leader of the free world") actually took the experts' advice into account and did something about a problem they were warning about. Think acid rain and the ozone hole. The experts weren't "wrong" - the effects they warned about absolutely would have occurred if we didn't do anything to stop them. But we did do something. Its astounding how many people are willing to believe "we fixed a problem" is equivalent to "there never was a problem". Certainly there have been true failures as well - climate scientists are merely human and make mistakes just like anyone else. I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying focusing entirely on the few mistakes and ignoring the many accurate predictions is a fucking stupid way to function as an individual, as a nation and as a species.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Lobbying_and_related_activities is plenty of proof that what you've said is 100% correct. I also think it's time to admit that only a minority of the population can be reached by scientific arguments (i.e. facts). The masses don't care, don't want to care, and don't even realize when they're swayed by this or that side via emotional manipulation. Our society is modeled after the ideals of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment , which is why human stupidity (especially ignorance) as an unavoidable human trait is still a taboo, but our society really needs to acknowledge this side of human nature and find solutions for that.

People like Sabine want an entirely ethics-free discourse. Not once did she actually mention any actual harms of climate change. Okay, I agree that "trying to scare" people is not the right aim but we do need to discuss the actual harms and talk about how many people will be killed, homeless, etc because of climate change. Those are the relevant facts. How warm it is, indeed, is not something that people can contextualize.

"Only" So let me tell you about this man called Al Gore...

No, it doesn't work. It alredy happened with the estimations of the last century when they said that by 2000 the ice caps would be melt, then the politicnas and "scientists" accepted that they had to exagerate all so people had to act, but in reality that was for some people to earn money with that, and those things make people become more skeptical.

And there is also cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

Tell me what's going to happen? More rain and humidity. Warmer nights and days not so much affected. More mosquitos 🦟 More maintenance costs on drainage Dios Mio!

Exactly why we don't have children.

She admits over and over again that we’re not doing well in regards to the climate. Do I expect fire and lava by the time I’m 80? No, but just in the 36 years of my life so far, I can notice a huge change in the climate and nature in general.

​@@tyleredwards5643 my grandpa is 80 and he been hearing this Climate Doomsday World Ending Catastrophe since his childhood. And well we are still here. Lmfao 😂😂😂

So you draw conclusions about all scientists from the actions of one?

@@bearclaw5115 did i say that?

You know what else undermines science? Famine and war. But please, let's try another decade of _reasoning_ with people. It's worked so well for the past 6.

@@altrag War not.

​@@ThePowerLover War is death of everything. Just because it put humans in a bad spot to be innovative doesnt mean in long term it wont axe science. Think if einstein died in germany instead of running away. Or how many genius souls we never saw in books because of it.

It's not beyond your control. You should be scared about things within your control

​@imeakdo7 how is climate change in anyone's control? If

Understanding that less than 0.1% of the problem is under control by less than 0.000001% of the people makes things seem lopsided.

LOL Granny gotta pay the bills

She’s 47 years old and not a grandmother. Her children, twin daughters, were born in 2010.

In fairness she was speaking against terrifying people into action, but point taken.

Yes, sorry, that's what I mean by "on record": since there have been records.

There are ways to know ancient climates. The fossil record is helpful.

​@@SabineHossenfelderOne hears many different claims that refer to this same "record": the medeival warm period, the Roman warm period, co2 concentrations 6 times as high as now amd with on average 3 to 4 degrees warmer climate millions of years ago. Is this true? And if the climate could be as warm or way warmer than it is now, what does that say about anthropologic climate change and human agency?

@@SabineHossenfelder 1896 and 1936 were incredibly hot years, and we have enough data from accurate temperature measurement devices to back it up. You are being scammed by people who's paycheck relies on perpetuating the human caused global warming narrative. Consider: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j3AbE2r2qWw.html

​​@@jccusell These are great questions, and I hope Sabine gets to them! When people bring up such events, it's important to remember that they were regional, not global. What we're experiencing is global, and therefore stresses* globally interconnected systems all at once. Could you provide your source saying the Roman warm period had any significant change in CO2? My quick research indicates that's false, and it's not one of the measurable proxies. The event was caused probably by ocean currents, and has nothing to do with global greenhouse gasses. Going back millions of years is tough and problematic - we don't have ice cores for that time period, and everything turns... Geologic. A denier recently tried to school me by claiming we had higher CO2 concentrations some 450 million years ago and yet the planet was actually colder, therefore climate change is a lie. Well, it turns out that our Earth was experiencing a global winter caused by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions spewing gasses and soot into the atmosphere. Not exactly an intelligent example to bring to the table... I was certainly not impressed.

I think it's only bizarre from a perspective of unrealistically idealistic views on human nature, e.g. based on ideals from the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment , e.g. expecting rational behavior and openness to or even curiosity about scientific arguments. But you can take many global crises or even most internet comment sections as a counterexample of these ideals and realize that our society has a flawed picture of its citizens and has a hard time accepting our behavioral similarities to other mammals. I won't claim that a society based on idealistic views is generally a bad thing. But it needs to be adaptive, which is very hard because this involves changes in our cultural values.

what facts about CO2, Cite me one.

Most people who believe the climate fear mongering don't know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere - That's 4 particulates for every 10,000. Most people also think that carbon dioxide can magically store endless amounts of photons/radiation. If it could do that, we would be using it for energy storage. It does not, and because most people blindly believe anyone who is given the title of "expert", we have to deal with this insane hysteria. The planet was warmer during the medieval period, and yet, life continued to thrive.

The vast majority of scientists did not agree with the premise that CO2 was causing catastrophic warming 45 years ago. Magically you only find such numbers of them after Kyoto where political forces started to tie all grants and money into supporting the conclusion. That's 27 years ago. Most of history climate scientists have not considered it a problem worth any sort of panic. Politicians like Al Gore have been stirring fear on the subjects since the 80's.

Have that tab open but not read it

It's not ethical it's downright criminal Public Fearmongering counts as harrasment and public intimidation if you can't do it so shouldn't any "scientists(activists)" either..... it's a crime since 1997.

Thanks, that's lovely!

At least your conscience is pacified

we already operate with tons of lies as is, ones far more fundamental to most of society than exaggerating climate change.

The people who are known to lie to you all have a direct profit motive to lie, see the fossil fuels industry.

I have had more of these conversations with friends where they advocate lying about climate change to push action than I care to count. Its been this way where people are willing to lie for it for a long time. A few years ago there was an issue with a NOAA scientist fudging his numbers expressly to scare people into action.

We know for certain who is willing to lie…and it’s not the climate scientists. Oil companies have lied for decades about their effects on the climate and it’s on record

Why is it a lie when you are freaked out and think that the others should get freaked out too to see at least a bit of action?

How many of this invasive species are left?

@@Dr.JustIsWrongdoes it matter? if your normal habitat, your home, became too unliveable, would you stay, or would you try to do something about the situation? would it be conflicting that you'd become an invader on foreign ground, when migrating from your primary living area?

@@brb__bathroom _"does it matter?"_ Yes, obviously. If you don't know how many remain world wide, 10 billion is a meaningless number intended to cause fright.

​@@Dr.JustIsWrong It is still a huge number of crabs affected by the heat waves, while I couldn't find any info on exact number of crabs it seems like a sizeable population. Besides there are many more species affected by climate change and it's impossible to not notice if you have been paying any attention. Rate of extinction of species is astronomically high right now. Fear mongering maybe is not the solution but we should be concerned about the climate.

@@sukhmandersingh4306 _"I couldn't find any info on exact number of crabs it seems like a sizeable population."_ Neither could I. I see *_"OMG 10BILLION!!!!"_* all over, but zilch on total population of this hugely important but invasive species. Considering climate change is massively financial and political, the absence of data is sus and then the 10b becomes sus too. Transparency is important. It's not the first incomplete presentation of simple data about this issue and definitely follows decades of blatant lies, intentional misinformation, and a light scattering of 'nearly true' data. Regardless, humans can't terraform.

You're right. We don't. We don't know how bad it really is.

How come every time it was the hottest year on record it was when carbon admissions were reduced

I donate to a similar charity. It's fun to see what they accomplish.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason. Fear mongering means you can't convince people on the facts, because you're wrong. None of the doom predictions have come true in over 200yrs.

@@SoloRenegade You're misinformed if you think there has been some campaign of doom predictions for 200 years. Besides, for climate "doomer" stuff, MIT's models predicted the world would end in 16 years so you should still be open ears if your reasoning goes the way you say

@@rusty6172 nope, we have documented proof. Obama's own climate advisor was on a National Geographic TV show in teh 1970s advocating the US and USSR nuke the polar ice caps to melt the ice and stave off an ice age. We have doom predictions in newspapers going all the way back to teh dawn of the Industrial revolution and the use of steam/coal power. We have decades of doom predictions by "climate scientists" and alarmists about Fiji being underwater, about famines, about ice ages, about extreme weather, no more snow, etc. and they have never come true in over 200yrs of trying to predict it. None of Greta's nor Al Gore's predictions have come true, nor have any climate model predictions come to pass as they've all vastly overestimated. " MIT's models predicted the world would end in 16 years so you should still be open ears if your reasoning goes the way you say" wow, that is a stupid statement. So they are demonstrably untrustworthy and wrong, but you see that as confirming evidence they are right and that you should listen to them anyways? I have a bridge I want to sell you, let me know if you're interested.

my thoughts too. Scientists are right to ask the question: How on Earth do we get people to realize that they are facing an existential threat which looks like it is speeding up and getting worse faster than previously expected.

@@rusty6172 All of MITs models, you say? Even the ones they made when I was a kid in the 70s? That has since been shown to be way off, and the data used wasn't accurate but the best available at the time.

Lets begin with.... What is a climate denier? Cause its not the same as an anthropolgical driven climate change denier... there are tons more issues but just there with the above mentioned lower the creadability of the climate denier "pusher"...

@@kennethnystrom593 that's easy - you are

@@kostuek Trolling much?

More CO2 increases plant growth.

There are many ways to "reconstruct" temperatures in the past. And these are in pretty good accordance with each other. You did know that, right? "knowing they will lie". Eh, who is this "they"? The only people proved to have lied, consistently and for decades, are the fossil fuel companies and their stoolies.

That's what I am afraid of too :/

It's a bit late for that...

Defiance of what? We can't terraform so fearmongering is simply to reroute money and power, but mostly just to sell advertising.

That is why I think a better approach is to point out the toxicity of petrochemicals. We can see the noticable effects of that everywhere where as climate change is really hard to notice. Then again, people might be terrified if they were told how problematic having bits of anything hypoallergenic floating around in their blood stream is.

Yeah, they annoyed me into defiance almost 30 years ago. They've been terrifying people with wildly wrong predictions for over 100 years now.

Fear of what, and when?

Fear of the reality that the data presents.

@@JonGoldstein1954 have any specific datum ?

Are you suggesting that wild panic can possibly lead one into making a mistake?? Are you a psychologist? 🤨

but the situation itself is terrifying. it's not like someone is trying to deceive anyone. they are just trying to have people open their eyes.

@@raduungureanu2080 _"it's not like someone is trying to deceive anyone."_ They keep getting caught intentionally lying. It's not terrifying while 60 years of predicting fail so utterly and profoundly. It's Chicken Little, crying, "wolf!"