The Biggest Myth About Climate Change 

This comment is the proof that I haven't watched it yet but you can give a heart for honesty Joe

Thanks it helped me in my school project.

@@Tanishdutt0007 bruh You are so early there's no way it helped you in any way yet.

Climate change is natural.

@@nishantmanchanda3221 yes

Yesss, for real.

What do you think is the gas responsible for the greatest part of greenhouse effect on Earth? What's the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to you (possibly not what is in the report from the IPCC)? Have you heard of Milankovitch Cycles? what was the temperature in Europe in the XVII century? and in the XI century? About making it worse, what do you think is the impact of mining (conveniently ignored by the IPCC) to make electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil: congratulations for the solutions you'll bring to a problem that is *mostly* natural.

@@RegisMichelLeclerc only way to stop this so called manmade climate change is to limit one child per couple till population is back down to 80s records

@@girlsdrinkfeck Or replace pension age by execution age and recycle the bodies into Soylent Green? Seriously, plants thrive in CO2-rich atmosphere, not that much in the current 0.04% (that's the official number). In this regard, nuclear plant feed the water cycle, as water vapour is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect, Milankovitch Cycles show 41,000-year "main" cycles with global heating alternating with cooling cycles (including ice ages like the one culminating in the XVIIth century when the sea froze). The global heating we see now starting in the XIXth century was expected, and it's only the beginning (those cycles are 1,000 years long, 500 heating and 500 cooling) and the Sun... Well, you would love to have more greenhous effect next winter. Unfortunately, solar winds wipe the clouds and make pressure higher, which makes the air much cooler in winter, therefore incapable of carrying as much water, thus reducing a lot the greenhouse effect: it's going to be freezing this winter, what part do you think will be man-made in solar activity? By the way, the aforementionned cycles predict that CO2 levels *follow* global warming. Al Gore pretended it was the opposite, while being perfectly aware he was inverting cause and consequence. Ecology is a huge sham, a blatant lie. About mining, the lowest estimates bring the GHGs around 7% of manmade releases of GHGs, but it's more like 20%. The mining industry destroys biotopes, pollutes drinkable water, releases pure poisons in the atmosphere (heard of antimony?). Ask yourself what is better "for the Earth", or even for human: an electric car, or a diesel propelled with vegetable oil (that's how it was initially designed), promoting Agriculture (hemp tends to capture a lot of carbon from the atmosphere)? Continue drilling for "natural gas" to support the lack of wind in winter (high pressures from Siberian anticyclones don't help too much, and the Sun is too low in winter to produce anything anyway because the energy is fully absorbed by the atmosphere), or invest into biogas from the fermentation of dung and promote breeding cattle? Choose your solution wisely before pretending you're fixing a non-existent problem with lethal "solutions".

@@RegisMichelLeclerc Don't reply with such a misleading comment especially when the video itself addresses almost everything you thought you were clever enough to bring up

The science is clear: Man made climate change is a fact. The only uncertainly left in the science is how bad the effect will be. But the science is also says we can't take the risk to wait for the science to become more precise. Anyone that says we should do nothing is deliberate ignoring all the science for the sake of short term convenience. And what we actually do about it is inherently political.

They've been saying this for over 50 years. The ozone, a coming ice age, al gore saying by 2016 the coast will be underwater and most recently aoc saying we only have 12 years back in 2018

@@earthsurgery1237 it only needs to happen once after tipping point reaches... Many islands are already under water And oceans did grow by 400 feet after last glacial maximum Go read the story of great flood in ur bible and every other culture... Where do u think that water came from?

@@themanof oh yeah. How about the Cayman islands

I DEMAND physical proof

My windows were frozen this morning do you have any advice on this problem.

@@woodchipgardens9084 plug your car's exhaust into your HVAC system and start it up, that should warm up your house pretty quick

@@lordthicknipples-gt2oq my house and car have working heaters but i just cant stop the windows from freezing overnight because of global warming.

@@woodchipgardens9084 hmm. That's a tough one. Maybe try the COVID vaccine, I hear it gives you a third ass cheek and makes you impervious to cold weather. Personally, the vaccine gave me a third eye... but it's in my belly button. I use it to freak people out at parties and also to look up girl's shirts, but that's just between you and me

@@woodchipgardens9084 Yeah, there is something wrong. Don't know what it is but I would advice seeking help.

This is actually a mistake in the video. Exxon found out about climate change more than 40 years ago. Climate scientist later on simply researched further into it.

Haha, I was actually thinking this as he was speaking about the first myth.

@@Ashitaka255 exept Milankovitch Cycles are some misleading informations like it was only in some parts of europe was short time changing climate it was warm not only in europe in XI century was so warm that wikings make farming colony on greenland in XI century was global warmig that way greenland has name greenland after wiking left because get much colder after in XVII century it was so cold that they call it litle ice age He also downplay influence of volcanos on climate 1815 Mount Tambora eruption and year 1816 was call Year Without a Summer far over 100,000 people died worldwide from hunger. And Politics who shout about global warming buying big mansions for tens of milions dolars on florida beach which supose to be soon under water... florRegis-Michel Leclerc make good point about electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil. I add to this that electrity to charge electric cars is made from fossil fuels and we dont have electric grid to charge many milions of electric cars also will be milions tons of toxic waste from bateries and solar panels we need clean way to store energy when sun is not shining and no wind even industry still use fossil fuels only way we can now produce clean energy is atomic electric plant it produce small amount toxic waste which can be safe to store and is even safer than wind turbines including charnobyl and fukushima its lest dead for megawat than any other electric plants. but warriors with global warming want to close atomic electric plants.....

Find this actually to be a bad argument, can't use truth in an argument because both were discovered by scientist? And you think its a good argument?

@@kmoses582 Did you even watch the video? The argument is that the climate scientists, being the ones who discovered the natural cycles in the first place, already took them into account when coming to the conclusion that the current climate change crisis is man-made.

Yes! I call that “weaponized ignorance” 😂

Ignorence + social media = major problem.

@@PeterAden ignorance *

Ignorance*arrogance + Social Media + Conspiracy bubble = Mass Movement of Arrogance*Ignorance = Biggest problem

The biggest problem that many people just comment whatever is in their heads without thinking for a second whenever it's really true. It often takes just 10 seconds to Google to find an answer, but many simply skipping that step...

Or the numerous scientists who have been calling it bunk for decades, and demonstrating it with facts and evidence that no one disputes.

If the Earth stops rotating, *still* natural processes would be working. Why not?

@@enderwiggin1113 Dumest thing I ever heard, you should consider deleting that.

@@woodchipgardens9084 "Dumest thing I ever heard," Oh, the irony......

@@enderwiggin1113 if the earth stopped rotating, you wont be alive to talk about it.

that is a very valid concern. we need governments to take this disaster seriously and make real efforts to restore our planet and prevent the further destruction of it. we must make them change

I get what you mean. I think that we definitly do have responsibility and should all try to reduce carbon since significant change can only happen if most people participate. It obviously is frustrating to see governments and companies to continue as before though, or also seeing rich people blast a bunch of CO2 into the athmosphere for a 10 minute trip with their private jets. Those are really significant factors that need to change, too, not just the general population. But the sad reality is that if you are wealthy and got power in this system, you will suffer less than many others that are less privileged and for example will have to leave their homes and countries or die as a result of climate change if we don't act now. Great, recent example which has angered a lot of people in germany: Just last month, a german company called RWE demolished a village called Lützerath in order to dig for estimated 280 million tons of carbon beneath it. They persuaded the people living there into selling their homes to them, and even though they got compensated, many felt pressured into that decision and aren't happy with it now. Lützerath also stopped getting supported by things like good public transport, kindergardens or supermarkets in order to make living there even less attractive. The government of northrhine-westphalia (the german state which Lützerath belonged to) allowed the demolishion after making deals with RWE. After harsh criticism, they started telling the population that we would need that carbon because of the energy crisis in correlation to the war in Ukraine, which is opposed by scientific institutes. Germsny actually managed to stop being dependent on russian oil, carbon and gas and stopped buying those in the beginning of 2023. We have enough reserves, too. Furthermore, the government acts like it's okay to demolish Lützerath because RWE has to leave the other villages in that area alone, like that's a fair compromise. Lützerath is even treated as a symbol for climate protection, which ignores the fact that it's more than that and that the decision has an actual impact. Our planet doesn't care about such compromises and symbols though, and even if we only use the carbon below Lützerath, germany still won't be able to meet the goals of the paris agreement on climate goals from 2015. Protesters occupied the village over multiple years but got evacuated by the police this january as a order of the government, so RWE can get to work. During the evacuation, 35.000 people also went there to protest. Police violence took place and the single officers didn't have individual numbers to be identifiable but instead only had group numbers, which makes it even harder to sue an officer for violence (besides the fact that it's already extremely hard to get justice when you literally have to go to the police for that). Companies such as RWE really try to profit as much off of carbon until they finally _have_ to stop in 2030, instead of taking responsibility asap and actually starting to reduce the use of carbon and extendimg climate friendly, renewable energy sources as much as possible. And our government protects these companies instead the future of humanity. We all need to start working together to solve this problem, or at least reduce the consequences as much we still can in order to protect this planet, but sadly it doesn't look too good.

@@astradose I think if ALL Governments around the world stopped using private jets for their meetings and just used the internet, that alone would be a saving worth more than millions of people turning off a light or TV or doing 1 less trip in the car. If they want us to start, they need to start showing some real concern at the top, because what they're saying doesn't match with anything they're doing. Like buying up all the cheap properties by the sea where they have scared off the residents. Doesn't seem quite right that after saying we'll be under water in 12 years. They're either lying to us or know something we don't. And for someone like Obama to buy that property for millions is a kick in the teeth.

@@Denzanmaru1 With a name like "Rain" I would be surprised if you _didn't_ think like that. Were your Mom and Dad hippies?

​@@astradose Do you actually believe that adding to a wisp of a trace gas, by a hundred parts per _million_ or so will cause a climate catastrophe? If so... Your Indoctrination is Complete. Carry on.

Um, no. This simply does not follow. I'm sure you can think about *a lot* of things which are *not* about money yourself.

@@enderwiggin1113to be fair it IS a lot about money.

@@Joseph-vt5um So what....? Somehow deniers always miss that there's *FAR* more money in big industry and fossil fuels. Following the logic of the OP, one should not believe them a single thing.

​​@enderwiggi The Earth cools down after every sunset and warms with every sunrise, the degrees depend on weather and wind patterns not hunan activity, human activity polution gets wiped out by natural processes, human activities do not impact the atmospheric systems.

SPAMMER

It's mostly from NASA. Just ask for specific things, I'm glad to help.

@@enderwiggin1113 thanks! I wanted some references on what he says at 2:43 "every climate model factors in these natural forces... the only way to get climate models is to add in all the stuff that humans are doing to the climate". It's very well explained and wanted to read a bit more about it.

NASA 'Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change (1850-2018) '

and 'Is Current Warming Natural?'

@@enderwiggin1113 thanks!

oh yes it is: you're the problem. Now pay more taxes and more for your energy. period

@@philosophicaltool5469 No

This is not simple. I've taken courses in meteorology, planetology and planetary science and everything here is included. More detail can be given on all of these which are based on physics included spectroscopy, atomic physics and quantum field theory. One thing left out is the feedback process of the melting of polar ice. Ice reflects 75 percent of the sunlight while water only 4 to 40 percent depending on the angle of sunlight. Water absorbs more light so the more than the north polar ice cap melts, the warmer it gets in that region due to more surface area of water and less ice. It is important to know that it's not just science, but physics. Meteorology and Climatology are based on physics, chemistry, geology, geochemistry which is chemistry and geology, oceanography, spectroscopy which is based on atomic physics and quantum field theory, astrophysics and astronomy. This video does have the correct physics.

Why pay more taxes? To finance the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?

@@philosophicaltool5469 aaaaaaand you prove his point

Geological time includes now.

​@@nik07nikaccording to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces.

Tom Nelson has 197 Interviews regarding Climate Crisis.

@@woodchipgardens9084 "according to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces." Please cite in the video with a time stamp, when that was actually said. I'll wait.

Scammer

"think what was the world like then" Huh?

Traffic lights melting is a new thing. Sea levels are rising and there is plenty of evidence for that. Record seawater temperatures.

@@Justwantahover Which traffic light melted due to global warming...? Huh? Did you mix something up here? See 'Photo shows melted traffic light in Italy, not extreme heat damage in Texas'

@@JustwantahoverPropaganda. Numerous scientists are calling bunk on all of this and proving it with their research. Ignorance is the real problem, leads people to getting misled.

Remember when Brentford beat Manchester City?

Now, imagine if we went through a Carrington-level event. This was a *MASSIVE* solar flare that affected telegraph equipment in 1859, caused Aurora Borealis displays as far south as San Diego, sparks and fires at battery installations at telegraph stations. People were reported to even be able to use telegraphs without any power connected at all during the flare. If a Carrington-level event were to happen today, chaos would result. It'd cause blackouts, damage the power-grid, and our satellite networks.

@@DrachenGothik666 Also only pre 1980 vehicles would still run. Restomods? Probably not. I do not think my 2004 Envoy or the 2016 Trax is hardened enough to run after a 1859 style flare event. And the microwave in the kitchen also may not survive.

@@DrachenGothik666 It would only affect the area of the planet facing the sun though. Solar winds don't wrap around the planet, they go in straight lines. ;)

But what does that have to do with climate change?

I hope your death did not hurt too much

@@isabellach oh thank you so much! No it was not too painful. A little itchy. But now I'm in the afterlife and damn it's pretty kewl. Free internet all the time. I mean that's like a big perk you know??

A single piece? Certainly not. Science does not work this way. A good start would be a climate model which reproduces the observations *that* well like the ones with have, but without human factors.

What's your *own* answer to your question?

over the last few years i have flipped back and forth several times as i come across different evidence and perspectives that cause me to rethink my stance. at the moment i’m undecided, focusing on building myself and my business first. maybe one day ill put forth the effort to form a sagacious opinion. as of now, it’s not that big of a deal for me atm

one thing i would be very interested in though is how the temperature measurements are being taken, by whom, where, when. that’s probably what i’d look into first

@@conrad8968 Well, just look at the websites of the metereological services. They explain this in great detail.

Incorrect. You can prove that you threw something.

Oh good one. I've never thought of this analogy.

@@yourcrazybear And we can prove that we've added a lot of unnatural stuff to the atmosphere, or rather the same stuffs but at an extremely unnatural rate. It's measurable, it's demonstrable, it's probably been shown to you countless times before already. This is literally addressed within the first 3 minutes of the video ffs. Stop denying reality. Also, stop liking your own comments. It's just sad.

@@osmosisjones4912 Carbon and Oxygen are in fossil fuels that's why they release Carbondioxide

@@osmosisjones4912 Dear estimate, that's the point of the carbon cycle. Natural sources release and absorb carbon constantly, absorbing more carbon dioxide that it release, so forest, ocean etc. are natural sinks of carbon dioxide. The problem is us, humans, release more than the ecosystem can absorb so it continues adding up during years and years. The CO2 ppm of the atmosphere was practically constant during the last thousands of years (all of them in human era), about 270 ppm. From 1750 to 1950 it rised to 310 ppm aprox, from 1950 to nowadays it has escalted to 410 ppm aprox. We are reaching levels not seen for 20 millions years ago. Best regards.

We will help you. Signed, Brussels 🤣

@@LMB222 just please don't kick us out of the EU, we just need some... adjustments to our leadership :D

Or it's forest management.

Greetings from Germany, where we also have a growing populist and right wing part of our population. Mostly countryside, religious and not too well educated. It makes me sad to see what is becoming of hungary, the country that kind of started the opening of the iron curtain. Why are people voting for their own disadvantage? I speak with colleagues from Poland and Czech Republic and they also don't get why people vote for these authoritarian governments.

@@andreaswagner8356 Because nationalism and the fostering of a persecution complex towards the outside world is a great way to control the populace and keep them mad at those outside their borders rather than their leaders within them. After all, it's not the fault of Hungary's government policies for why you are poor, no, your problems all stem from our external enemies, like a foreign, Hungarian, Jewish billionaire!

The sun is pretty nuclear

Just note that the oceans always absorb a lot of heat, it's not so much that they are masking it but rather a normal part of the process considering their thermal capacity

@@123FireSnake Ok, uhmm, why the fck are the storms getting stronger year by year if there's no accelerated climate change?

@@123FireSnake unfortunately that absorbed heat will cause its own problems. The deepest waters are actually still warming from the temperature they were cooled to tens of thousands of years ago, meanwhile the topmost parts of the ocean are warming so much that the buoyancy difference will have a large effect on ocean currents and anything dependent on them, anoxic zones may develop, native organisms will have hard times staying in their original habitat, and coastal areas will experience different weather. Europe likely will become cooler and dryer because the gulf stream will continue weakening.

Well, you can`t stop climate chaos. Tell me how you plan to control the Sun, asteroids, sea currents, evolution, changes in natural systems, or the certainty of more catastrophic volcanic eruptions like 536 A.D. or "The Year Without A Summer"? So would you prefer warmth or freezing cold?

@@baneverything5580 It's not about controlling everything. It's about taking a look at history and manage risks. We know what happens when we burn fossil fuels and we know this disrupts the stable climate that allowed us to get where we are in the first place. So lets fix that and at least not shoot ourselves in the foot. Indeed, a lot of factors are out of our control. We shouldn't try to control everything, but it can't hurt to look at possible risks and see how we can make the best of it.

Volcanos gave us atmosphere and will never go away.

Accurate coners4430

why would we care what a politician from the 80s thought? Thatcher? uhhh

You might be surprised that like the endless nonsense about the climate the same can be said about the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica. Ozone is produced around the equator (heat breaks down O2) it then is spread by winds around the planet. It was well known that the amount of Ozone changes seasonally at the Poles. The conspiracy was due to Dupont losing the patent on CFCs. They organised a " scientific paper" discussing the non issue and had them banned while they came up with a new hard to manufacture gas. Very clever but very crooked. It cost companies a lot of money to change over!

The storms are the same, we have the www. More coverage, so these disasters are more known not more frequent.

Check out my comments on this video. There are plenty. Global warming is a hoax perpetrated upon the unlearned by people who want to gain power and are willing to use other people to get there.

Yeau send him a flat earth video too, maybe you'll convince him.

"Hurrr, durrr, climate has never changed naturally before." I trust science that there is evidence and proof of, such as the historical record that we can check. I don't trust people who call themselves "the science" as they speculate about a "possible" future, yet the are PROVEN WRONG, over and over again. How many times have they said certain cities would be under water, by now? They always act like something major is going to happen within 10 years if we don't act quickly to give them more power, right away! It's not about the climate. It's about control. They want to have another method of controlling (and taxing) the people. It should be very clear to anyone who looks at it. Sure, do your best to avoid polluting, but don't trust the same clowns who call water vapor and carbon dioxide (what we exhale) greenhouse gases that need to be taxed.

update? did he change his mind?

I doubt it worked.. nothing here to prove.

lemme guess. zodiac signs and astrology?

Maybe it's just galactic summer and winter

In theory just know that other galaxies can affect ours. Stretch your mind to that one if you can

Of course they do. It's just negligibly small.

Well yes it's part of the Milankovitch cycle..

Sorry, and your point is?

@@standardnerd8691 There is freezing temperatures on the equator.

Bravo educating yourself! To me, being a smart/nice/good person more about educating yourself and improving your compassion and awareness then anything we’ve done or believed previously :)

The smartest thing they did was rebranding it "Climate change" instead of "global warming" Because I'd still be skeptical of "Global warming" but it's undoubtable that humans have contributed to climate change. It also slowly allows us to talk more about the enviroment (oceans and more) that humans have interacted with as well instead of worrying about a single variable.

@@Kinglink a fart can be considered climate change, so it was a cool rebranding to continue the panic

A lot of people are willing to learn so the fact that you were willing to like tells a lot and I respect that

@@Kinglink you mean the most evil and manipulative thing they did? sure...

Indeed. Add to this that humans also have an influence.

unless you believe that humans are some kind of supernatural entities. then even anthropic climate change is completely natural.

@@gelmir7322 That's just semantic games. The common usage of the term 'natural' just means 'not caused by humans'

This is only for a few years. So this doesn't change anything in total.

It would be worth mentioning it you can explain all the fenomena that happens behind and why it only work in a really little temporary scale and don't affect in a deeply way the climatics dynamic of the world

@@davidcaro1229 Which phenomena are you talking about...? The climatic effect of vulcanoes is mainly their aerosols - which are 'washed' from the atmosphere (by rain) in months to a few years.

@@enderwiggin1113 Yeah forget about the millions of tons of CO2, it's manily aerosols. Lmao.

This is temporary

The video is about the question what *causes* this change.

There was never a time when it wasn't changing, and there never will be.

@@emergentform1188 Right. Your point? That's climatology 101. As I said: the video is about the *cause* of the change.

Great idea! But what's the relevance to this video?

I forgot my opinion on this,also I'm surprised that it was "2 months ago",actually I realised that months is "mo" while minutes is "min"

That is what fanaticism looks like.

Science is worthy of such things

@@phoenixthedragon6798 You left off the "not".

@@boogathon where tho

@@phoenixthedragon6798 There's only one place it could go...

Bad things that you simpls refuse to watch the video and look at *actual* evidence. Radiation balance has changed just as predicted since the 1970ties. Models work.

Can you explain the "physics" and "thermodynamics" you speak of? Because how CO2 impacts temperature is well understood even by undergraduates. Walk into your local college and say this, and you'll get a long explanation from every professor in the earth sciences department.

I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events. Wayne Patterson --- You are mistaken, because the Late Cenozoic Ice Age extending from about 34 million years ago to the Present day and the Quaternary Glaciation 2.5 million years ago to the Present Day have not "just ended." What "just ended was the Last Glacial Maximum ~20,000 years ago to ~6,000 years ago when we entered the Holocene Climatic Optimum and interglacial period which will end with the next Glacial Maximum Period in the ongoing Late Cenozoic Ice Age. The causes are a combination of events with the continuing reductions of Atmospheric mass from greater than 100 atmospheres to less than 1 atmosphere in the future due to natural biological sequestration of Carbon dioxide being one of the key factors.

Per definition we are still in a deep ice age. It's defined by at least one pole being glaciered and currently both are. Plus we are just getting close to the roman climate optimum. Climate change is real, but it's in no way proven it's man-made. Also if you care so much about climate, stop the CO2 nonesense and start caring about the seas! Simply because of the curvature of earth, we would reflect way more than would stay inside, if CO2 really had such an effect. Or did the earth heated up last time a volcano erupted?

Humans ofcourse!They are the ones who do this,aint it so??No,the ones who are calling to lessen the CO 2 to prefent climate change are the ones who dont know nothing!!Years and years they are calling that the sea rise is steadily higher and the global temperature is steadily rising!And guess what ?The temperature globally isnt rising!The rising off sea level is still the same as it was for centuries!When there was no rising off CO 2!!

MILANCOVIC CYCLES

The last Ice age ended around 10,000 years ago. Ice core studies have shown it basically goes 100,000 years ice age/10,000 year warm period/100k Ice age/10k warm...repeated over and over as far as they have records for. So id say we are getting closer to another ice age. So what we need is MORE carbon dioxide. As the planet is actually cooling down. What happened to all the Acid rain? That was some genuine BS!

Exactly, all fly private jets but have ads about climate change like our old mate Bill. When will people wake up, its honestly so transparent

Your comment will probably get deleted

The true cause of CC is ice-sheet albedo. Read paper: ‘Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo’. And this dust feedback works as well in the modern era (dust from China), as it did during the ice ages. Ralph.

@@RalphEllis If you were correct when it comes to modern CC, the nights would not be warming faster than the days. But since the opposite is happening, we know that you are wrong.

Just because these people have horrible lifestyles, doesn't mean climate change isn't real. It just shows they don't understand they're part of the problem, or are willingly ignoring so in spite of trying to make everyone else change. They're arrogant, sure, but we should all strive to change our behavior so that we decrease carbon pollution.

It's *essentially* the same. Only if radiative equilibrium is established - which isn't the case due to increase in greenhouse gases. As soon as a new equilibrium is established (this takes same decades, ignoring ice-albedo feedback), energy absorbed and energy emitted are going to be the same again.

All of this climate data is skewed.

To trick you into thinking that the temperature has dramatically increased in the last 40 to 50 years when the truth is it hasn't increased anymore than the models show the standard increase due to the fact that we are coming out of an Ice Age still the whole thing is about funneling money into corporations and large interest groups and transfer wealth from poor middle class people in the world to the wealthy

Oof yeah that’s a disingenuous graph

He also completely omitted how the earth's magnetic field reflects solar radiation. And protects u from harmful UV rays...

Actually no he’s showing the accurate graph, you are just trying to make a point that literally makes no sense

Are you a bot or do you need actual help? Because looking at the comments and the time difference (months to hours), there seems to be some issues. Not rhetoric btw.

​@@bdarecords_lake tahoe still makes snow, nothing changes.

@@bdarecords_That's what I keep asking myself. woodchipgardens is really amazing.

@@woodchipgardens9084 What's the benefit in arguing against things that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Coping mechanism?

@@bdarecords_ Nobody believes your statement.

Hear! Hear!... Or is it 'Here! Here!' ?

well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!

@@ericvulgate "Hear, Hear” is the correct expression that means an agreement with someone's point. It's short for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”

@@ericvulgate They're both correct for all intensive purposes.

@@damonedwards1544 brilliant ;)

Unfortuneatly,scientists monitor theories that the do not agree with and stiffle them.They will be the death of us.

Truth is winning and humanity is prevailing over tyranny. This is happening despite the fact that most people still haven't even realized we are at war. It only takes a small minority of awake people to turn it around, and that's what's happening. Covid was the wake up call. It's glorious.

Climate change isn’t all about heat. Dont you read anything?

@@peteconrad2077 read about year 536 and 1816 then come back and talk about your fears.

Remember, cyanide is natural.

I wonder if the Quadrillions/Quintillions of Archaea/Bacteria were thinking their environment was just cooling off a bit; they were not dying of in the next few thousand generations. There was still plenty of room and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis; what did it matter other lifeforms were dying off. That seems to be the mentality if some of these people. Or Worse they think God will just fix it for them or The Rapture will occur where they magically get teleported to Heaven. Now I will not argue whether God exist; but I doubt the Abrahamic God meant for us to Ravage the Earth beyond habitability.

A city being flooded by a near by river is natural. Yet people don't like their cities being flooded even if its natural.

well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!

cancer is natural. yet people don't want to live next to chernobyl. dying is natural. yet people don't like terrorism. gravity is natural. yet people don't want to die in a plane crash. night is natural. yet people want street lighting. rain is natural. yet people want umbrellas and a roof over their heads. a running nose is natural. yet people prefer a handkerchief. heck, (natural) human hunter-gatherers probably had a life expectancy of 30 years, and child mortality of almost 50%. who wouldn't love to go back to that? 🤣

Because they are lying is all political Movement.

And things being done in undemocratic fashion without the population either being told and asked to vote on it. It is only those investigating what is going on that can outline the real truths

🤓

Problem is, the people writing those comments intentionally don't look at actual scientific studies on this topic. They just pick the first FOX News article they can find.

Right on, Naum. Well said!

@@WildFyreful There are ignorant people in countries that don't have FOX News. It's so frustrating when someone tells you "Just go and learn for yourself" and they give you a Facebook post from which you should "learn" what is the truth...

@@Vortyrion weird, usually they don't Give me anything, Facebook post or not. They don't care about evidence, they just don't want to agree with "the mainstream" it's not about thinking they're smarter, it's about mistrust, and generally they can't or won't follow a video like this. They don't have the tools to understand the explanation, and because they don't understand they distrust. Plus the whole issue of building a personal identity around not trusting scientists because they didn't understand why their teacher failed them in high-school science.

And would probably be detrimental to our efforts.

The purpose of the so-called carbon taxes is to discourage use by making alternatives appear less expensive. The tax revenue goes to line the pockets of politicians and to their buddies who support the global warming narrative ... and possibly to poor nations that are unable to afford modern technology. It isn't and wasn't meant to solve any problems.

@@bobjones7908 Well intended. Poorly executed. Well said my friend.

That’s quite the straw man.

@@iangrant4756 don’t call me a scarecrow 🤨🤨🤨.

Bartist, you probably haven't heard of the salt battery didn't you? It's more efficient and you don't have to mine it, I mean its just concentrated salt and metals. That can be fully discharged unlike lithium batteries.

@@nushia7192 I have not heard of the salt battery, I have heard of the molten sodium solar mirror power plants and carbon batteries which they are still struggling to construct.

The strangest thing about a gardener who should be prone to environmental protection and climate change awareness writing about oil companies profiting from climate change when they themselves demonstrably and evidently made a big effort to deny it

Like the reason you dont believe in climate change ironically are these oil companies. You reproduce what they want you to

​@@johndennis5233 I know this derivation and the assumptions used in it. This -18 deg. C mean global temperature is obtained by inserting a current value of the Earth's albedo into that formula derived from the energy balance, with the outgoing energy given by Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that the Earth is a perfect blackbody in the longwave regime, but not taking the greenhouse effect into the account in this derivation. But of course one can expect that on such colder Earth a value of its albedo can be be greater (as one could anticipate a snowball Earth-like state). It would decrease the absorbed energy flux, thus resulting in a temperature lower that that -18 deg. C

@@johndennis5233 Seems OK with this value of an albedo :) Although honestly I cannot say what will be the exact Bond albedo of such a planet, it requires some complicated calculations to determine. But this value would also be my rough guess, though it is of course to be taken with a grain of salt

Do you have a yacht?

@@remigiuscaesar8307 do you have a yacht?

This is like seeing a man with a knife in his chest and saying ‘he wasn’t murdered. People die of natural causes all the time’. Yes, slow or localised climate change can happen over extended periods of time, but they isn’t what is happening here especially as we are meant to be cooling due to natural cycles right now.

I suggest that you actually *watch* the video.

NO your suppose to say Global Boiling to scare the pants off everyone.

Yes, technically, but us putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not helping it

This a crucial viewpoint to get across as well. Just because man made climate change is real, doesn't mean that there aren't people trying to profit off of it in some way or that some of the people pushing only the most extreme viewpoints, don't understand much of the underlying science itself either. Then you get groups of people, even some scientists, who manufacture opposing data and easily swindle those who already are predisposed to believing it isn't real or our fault. The whole problem (and many others) could be basically eliminated eventually by putting more emphasis on education in science literacy and critical thinking. I don't have much hope for that happening anytime soon though. I fear we are on our way towards a lot of warming and we won't be able to stop it.

That's something interesting to consider. Thank you for putting that forth, I'll consider this too when trying to spread the word.

The term "climate denial" is a fallacy in itself. Joe's really fond of arguing with nearly only fallacies, so you're in good company here...

@@philosophicaltool5469 provide evidence of these fallacies. Unless you are just a troll since that seems to be the only thing you commented about here. Why are you even on a science channel if you have no interest in science?

@@naolmstead here's my first comment I posted here: that might get you an idea how bad it is what this man is pushing on you: "Without even watching this longer than 30 seconds, I can tell you this: it's really very simple to tell this supposed "climate change crisis" is an absolute fabrication; when you have a 16 year old girl with braid, Greta Thundberg, talking doom and gloom at the UN, you can be sure them Socialists are taking you for a run for your money... Also, it's a fallacy called 'pedophrasty' - "leave the kids out of this, let's talk facts", basically. - And yes indeed, "climate change occurs naturally" and CO2 has no effect on it whatsoever. When it gets warmer, the oceans release more of their CO2, just as your soda or beer does a lot faster in the summer. And this release of CO2 from the oceans, might only slightly result in a tiny positive feedback on the warming trend (the amount of CO2 needs to first double to even increase temperature with just one degree Celsius... ) Basically it's the sun, you silly! (and how it works it's 'magic' on the oceans, which are so good at retaining the sun's heat, so we can not freeze and have a life here on the planet, with plants converting CO2 into sugars.. ..so we can eat and live, together with everything else here on the planet!) - I'll watch this though, so I can make a video to debunk this one. Keep my channel in check. For now there's only a rather funny one on how Flat Earhters also don't do very well in the science department if you're interested." - pretty shitty video though, it's my first. But still funny af though.

That doesn't explain the medieval warm period or the little ice agi.

Noooo, worse, because it's being used to do the wrong thing in the alleged name of fixing it

@@minagica crude oil is contingent on the stability of the global economy. Whoever controls the money controls the world so I personally think we’re screwed regardless since the years of environmental protests for cleaner energy have failed to overcome the corporate greed that indoctrinates us…

@@Cardioid2035 I don't think we're necessarily screwed, but we will be if focus isn't turned on carbon capture instead of counterproductive Kyoto 🥺

it is , 75,000 years ago the population dropped to 30,000 humans estimates that only 2000 lived in sub Saharan Africa

@@minagica carbon capture is just bullshit at least at this point...

Find on internet the Milankovic cycles. And if one thing can be naturally modified, it does NOT mean it could not be modified non-naturally, by human activities.

Maybe if politicians weren’t over exaggerating and pushing ridiculous talking points it would be more acceptable. The push for “green” energy and EVs is more damaging to the environment than gas combustion vehicles.

@@ivermectin7928 i absolutely agree! Even if EVs are more efficient, we need LESS. less cars, less production, less consomption and a much greater stress on the responsibility of companies and large corporations rather than the current focus on individuals turning off the tap when brushing their teeth

@@MiaMakesThings EVs aren’t more efficient. Strip mining harmful materials with slave labor is bad enough, yet the electric provided to power EVs is made by coal plants and other polluting means. “Green” energy products are being tossed in landfills because they can’t be recycled or it’s too hard to. None of these people care about “climate change”. They care about an agenda and control.

@@ivermectin7928 yes of course, I was talking about the efficiency of the evs engine bs a combustion engine. In that sense it is much more efficient but of course everything you said after I agree with

@@ivermectin7928 Look at you lie.

One look at the comments section will reinforce why

Looking into the sun bad. Don't look into the sun you dummy.

Because our politicians and journalists have the mind set of a 3rd grader.

because his guy is nothing more than an pompous windbag.

Well, we are already in an ice age but I know what you mean. We probably can't stop long-term climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it from what should be a few million years to a couple hundred.

I'm also more concerned about an ice age that Alaska growing tomatoes ( aside from the gulf stream collapsing)

@@CHMichael if tomato's are growing in Alaska, that means the places that grow tomato's now would start to look like deserts. The economic and humanitarian consequences of that should scare you a LOT more then a ice age that, even without any human caused climate change, would be 50.000 years into the future.

Except in North America co2 increases in Winter. Then drops quickly in spring all the way to end of Autumn at the 45th parallel. So does co2 circulate from China, Russia, Europe and the US? Probably. Or does it go to Southern hemisphere for a summer vacation? NASA does record it and it does happen every year in the northern hemisphere. Why is co2 added to a greenhouse environment? Maybe that ancient 2012 prophesy is not about the planet's climate. It may be about society imploding.

@@warrenpuckett4203 It goes into plantmatter (leaves, yearly plants ect) that starts growing in spring and summer, and later decays again in autumn and winter, or eaten and breathed out. That's just part of the natural carbon cycle.

Indeed. So what? Magma isn't hydrocarbons / CO2.

@@enderwiggin1113 your doing what people call spliting hairs, doesnt mean the whole truth, half truth is as much of a lie, half truth is 50% lie.

@@woodchipgardens9084 I see. Saying that things are not the same at all is 'splitting hair'....

I am a little confused. I read your comment and looked into sequestration and the process of sealing CO2 emissions in concrete. In a study published in 2011 by Elsevier Ltd, it states that there is evidence to support the usage of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, which would mean that the fuel source used is irrelevant. These technologies would work on the carbon released in the process of creating carbon, regardless of the fuel used. If I am understanding this correctly, then the carbon released from the chemical reaction can be captured and then stored in deep underground geological formations or reutilized in concrete. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t need fossil fuels to sequester carbon, effective carbon capture technologies have been created (or are in development) that will capture, secure and store carbon. In case you want to check the study yourself here is it’s name: CO2 Capture and Sequestration in the Cement Industry. If you are wondering about the feasibility or funding of this technology: The DOE awarded funding to CEMEX Inc to develop and demonstrate a commercial carbon capture sequestration technology for their integration into cement plants in 2021. I am still new to the topic, so please fact check my information by going to the article!

@@silverblade236 you know what puts all the carbon in the atmosphere? Warming oceans. i.e. it's not the other way around, that CO2 warms the earth and thus the oceans.

@Nad Senoj Not only did you fail to say anything useful, you pushed someone further into their dogma with your hostility. Did Google hire you?

@@philosophicaltool5469 Warming oceans do hold less gases, and thus less CO2, which is true. But even while warming up the CO2 concentrations in the oceans has risen everywhere. So how come the CO2 is from the oceans while their concentration has increased? Simple: the CO2 content in the oceans is not only dependent on ocean temperature, but also on the partial pressure of gases in the atmosphere. Meaning that CO2 levels have risen so fast in the air that it is outpacing even the oceans warming effect. So it is coming from other sources, and thanks to the change in the carbon isotopes we know it comes from fossil fuels. For now oceans are

@@Stratosarge also, what is a circular argument?

Now they are finding out that the seas WERE 6 feet higher in Nero's time. LOL. Oh, and yesterday I saw that Greenland had -47F and the S Pole was -68F. LOL.

@@GordoGambler Yes but we need to talk about the average global temperature not specific temperatures within specific regions. Here where I am living currently we are seeing a temperature difference of 5 degrees from the nighttime low and the daytime high. Over the past 700 hundred thousand years or so the global average temperature has only really fluctuated by about 10 degrees, from the highest highs to the lowest lows. These are seen with the glacial and interglacial periods. Day to day temperature are classed as weather whereas climate is a look at the wider, longer term conditions on Earth.

It’s cloudy today, so I no longer believe the sky is blue.

@@benlaseter7719 Is it freezing also, tell me more.

@@benlaseter7719 11 ft of machine groomed Snow in Kirkwood California from the cloudy day.

Yes. Your point?

​@@enderwiggin1113were is the arrogant reply of No Information.

The BIGGEST Myth about it is that its 'Silly' to recommend to random Strangers good Climate--Covcerage. Information is Key, so of course i would mention UpisnotJump, Hbomberguy, OCC, Not Just Bikes, Climate-Town and Second-Thought, as well as Some-More-News. The latter is literally an issue-listing Channel though, so he got lots more to say. I recommend his videos on the the GOP's Shenanigans, as that affects us all.

Another one who has not even watched the video. Try 11:00 to 13:00. Flares are mostly the cause of sunspots.

Spammer. I've studied the history extensively. Vulcanic activity cause about 100times less CO2 than humans. Solar activity has been decreasing for decades. All of this is adressed in the video - why don't you actually watch it?

Long term, we are in an ice age that will continue so long as the continents are positioned in such a way that equatorial currents are blocked. As long as we are releasing greenhouse gasses it will be warmer, but the larger climate remains. Most of Earth's pre-history there were no ice caps at all.

😱 BIG 😱 BROTHER 😱 IS 😱 WATCHING 😣.... Oooooooooooooo 😱 Scary 😱😱😱😱

Oh, boy. You are not going to like hearing about this. I’m an environmental scientist. That means I’ve studied many subjects related to climate and earth sciences (geology, meteorology, atmospheric contamination, ecology, botany, erosion and desertification, oceanography, etc etc), so I have a decent knowledge about how the earth system works and the causes of climate change. Now comes the bad part: I’ve failed over and over again to convince people it’s teal and human made. What I’m trying to say is it doesn’t matter how much you research, that’s not the reason you failed. If your friends level of education on the topic isn’t enough, he simply won’t understand what you are explaining. Or if he has a strong political opinion against it, words simply won’t make it to his brain. And I mean it: people who refuse to accept what you expose, even if it’s completely backed up by science, and even if you give them the damn names of the studies, won’t accept it. The only people who changed their minds are those who had an open posture to begin with.

@@fernandoish9194 I experienced the same as a biopharmaceutical science postgrad regarding the covid vaccines. Many people just spread tales without sources, but they won't read or understand the ones I give. Oh, and I'm biased of course. Brainwashed! People are free to not get a vaccine, but not by basing their choice on false arguments.

@Fernando Ish you hit the nail on the head. You can’t fight ignorance with facts if people are trying to be willfully ignorant

How is this relevant to the content of the video?

@@enderwiggin1113 duh

@@chriswright2600 So it isn't. Thanks for clearing this up.

That's the key!

@user-uk8tl3xy9e right, I’ll now ask you a question, if I may? What is the biggest contributing factor to climate change, the sun or man? If you think for one minute it’s the latter, then I suggest you go away & research some more because this one is all about the scale of things! Come back to the table when you have something worthwhile to contribute & please stop regurgitating the facts & figures fresh from the MSM agenda‼️

@user-uk8tl3xy9e Oh dear. Someone has fallen hook line and sinker to the fear porn. Don't worry, we're all going to have to give up our cars pretty soon and pay more for our "carbon footprint", because giving more of your money and freedom to others is the answer to these "problems". It always is. You might wake up one day and realize just how deep the scam goes.

Climate scientists in every country all around the world aren’t part of a big conspiracy to lie about the data, driving around in their Ferraris are they? Who would that conspiracy even benefit? It’s fine though, no need to panic. You will be dead while your children live in increasingly hard times coupled with mass migration from the southern hemisphere which will become uninhabitable. Weak men scared of acknowledging that hard times are upon us.

​@user-uk8tl3xy9e Hey I'm from Canada and we are literally on fire right now