This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change 

Oh trust me, it's gonna get lower.

you're harming their profiteering lol

That’s crazy. Science is science. It doesn’t care about political opinions. This video is a truth bomb to ignorant people.

Can you as the content creator see the percentage of dislikes as well?

Thanks for doing this. Facts and science are the proper way forward, always.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👍🏻

Always has been true, always will be true.

There's lots of planets. Dead balls of rock or gas. The point is the people are fucking this planet's ability to support life, choosing to do so, and choosing not to change, which will lead to a lot more than just us getting fucked out of existence. And maybe etch a sketch the ability for complex life for millions of years. Point being, much as i love George, thinking in cosmic timescales isn't really helpful when we are choosing to wipe out the only known life in the universe on a day by day basis, and could chose not to. It's kind of a cop out for not bothering to change because it requires nothing of us today.

And many of the other species who we share this planet with. They don't get a say or a chance. What species can evolve fast enough to cope with the speed with which the climate is changing?

more accurate WESTERN CAPITALISM WILL KILL OUR PLANET. @@richardallan2767

They don’t want us to be educated. They want us to be brainwashed. That’s the fundamental problem.

Hear hear. The media landscape is particularly atrocious. Surely it's worse than previous eras

Yep this is the problem right here. When the media spreads around misleading stories and then says "If we don't do something within 10 years we are all gonna die!" It ends up having the opposite affect that they think it does.

I think the dark ages might have been worse. At least we get Astrum today.

As long as the power that be doesn’t want to change course, everything will stay as it is, doesn’t matter how many people shout STOP, they are the ones steering the wheel.

Spot on!

Ippc funded by governments should tell you all you need to know about these conclusions

The fossil fuel industry has its tendrils in so many aspects of modern civilisation, and in every government around the world. Factor in the huge disinformation and obfuscation campaigns they have run over the last 3 decades to poison the discourse in the public domain, and we arrive at the extremely dangerous result of the current situation. Shell has had drilling plans since 10+ years ago for when the arctic *no longer has any ice at all*... If humans are still drilling for more oil to burn when the arctic no longer has any ice, we have absolutely no chance at all. It is indescribably insane and is an ultimate example of the issue with commercial interests being allowed to pursue value for their investors regardless of the public interest and at huge detriment (and inevitable death and violence) to everyone and everything else.

Well, the science isn't political. But all the proposed solutions are. And some of them might work. But some are extremely unlikely to work and are just a waste of (often taxpayers') money. Some are just virtue signaling for proflt (companies claiming they're "green"). Some are outright scams (the recent explosion of "green" scams that crowdfund tons of money and then produce nothing or smth completely useless). Some solutions are so drastic that they'd cause mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation. And some people propose reducing the human population by mass genocides, sterilization programs, and draconian laws on family planning. So this is why it's highly political and controversial topic. Because everything we can do about it is highly political and controversial. Even if the science behind it isn't.

I've been around awhile, long enough that I've seen this show before. What we're seeing now with global warming is the same pattern we've seen with every profitable threat to civilization that's come along in the last couple hundred years. Take whatever deniers are saying about climate change right now and substitute lead, asbestos, DDT, PCB's, CFC's, tobbaco, seat belts, etc. It's like an old fashioned madlibs where you have blanks to write in whatever word you want. The crucial difference here is that rather than the suffering and dying end after lobbying and disinfo makes society drag its feet on the latest threat to public health, the damage done by climate change is frontloaded. If we manage to get this under control, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to increase climate instability for generations to come.

It tells you /us that Most Powerful Corporations such as Exxon, SHell, Koch Industries, and so forth are really ruling the world. They are true OVERLORDS dictating to governments and top Market Figures. Our Petrochemical Overlords only care about their current power and money - they are Greed Made flesh and blood. Until we all admit who is calling the shots we won't be able to stop excess CO2 production.

@@expandranon Quiet down you tragic drooling vegetable.

How much effect does the burning of thousands of lbs of chemical rocket propellants on a regular basis, to launch more junk into space have? I wonder...

Who is taking your cow?

Then pass a carbon tax.

​​@@Kenbark42 don't be obtuse. The UN is all about taking away from the West and telling us to eat bugs like other people do.

If the environmentalists were really concerned about the Earth they would put a moratorium on War making.

Exactly. Until we have people in power who actually CARE TO MANDATE CHANGE, we are just puppets in their greed game.

Don’t really get this one … no one is advocating polluting, the environmental movement was very successful in cleaning up pollution in the 60s and 70s. Even coal burns extremely clean if you use the right kind of coal and have the scrubbers in place.

"no one is advocating polluting" apparently you've never had eyes/ears in a corporate boardroom?

@@michaelw3927 @innerspace56 We are destroying the rainforest and also the natural forests in Eastern Europe at a rate that has never been seen before, partly to save the climate here in Europe. We continue to pollute the world's oceans with vast quantities of plastic, destroy the earth's coral reefs, overfish the seas, slaughter sharks on a grand scale, destroy Africa and other countries in order to obtain cobalt, lithium or neodymium to drive "environmentally friendly" cars in the western world or to generate "environmentally friendly" energy. But we are supposedly worried that global warming is destroying the world. Is it really that hard for people today to recognise propaganda?

... for britain

Growing grapes in Scotland no less.

I'm not sure which wine you're sipping today but clearly, it has NOT affected your fascinating logic !

@@gtfg3800 His logic is spot on, the historical records are spot on. The circumstantial evidence surrounding this was the building of large Churches, how could the society in Britain at that time afford to build such expensive structures; the warmer weather contributed to bumper harvests, which led to prosperity !

Greenland was a thriving, green island too. It got too cold and is now uninhabitable. Hopefully we get another warm period

Because we should all follow the narrative blindfolded. Here is a chocolate bar my good slave.

@@charliefrharper You sound just like you would use a car mechanic as a brain-surgeon. You make that much sense.

@@charliefrharper I hope the chocolate is gluten free and 100% organic

​@@charliefrharper Yeah, i think we should eat expired meat, expiration dates are just a scam to make us buy more food.

@@charliefrharper Are you saying that average global temperatures aren't increasing or they are but it is not caused by human activity? I am not an aerospace engineer so when I fly on a plane I have to trust the people that design, test, manufacture and maintain passenger jets know what they are doing. I am also not a climate scientist so I have no way of evaluating climate change besides understanding the general principles. Could the climate scientists, NASA, WHO, UN, practically every government be wrong? Sure but they could also be right. Could this all be an elaborate hoax to make us pay more taxes? I suppose but that doesn't make much sense to me. My personal view is global warming is a thing and it's probably either caused or exacerbated by CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere due to human activity. But there's nothing I can do about it and I will be long dead before it has any significant effects. I have no time for the alarmists, they need to STFU. The planet isn't going to die and the human race is not facing extinction.

The video is highly disliked on YT. Half of America doesn’t believe in climate change. You need to realize how stupid conservatives are

And yet it really is one his most disliked videos at 14k dislikes. Even his most popular videos with 5+ million views have less than half the dislikes of this one.

modern political state means something that was a normal take 10 years ago will get you called a million 'isms' by social justice particularly

@@swanqlord3048 im pretty much certain that most of those dislikes are just people disliking for shits and giggles, if he didint say that this will be his most disliked video it wouldnt be

@@fur_avery ...i am guilty of that, yes

Because oceans are huge and the ice mass is huge. The amount melting is small compared to the ocean and the remaining ice masses. Melting all ice will take around 5000 years at the current rate (or never if we slow down the warming) or at least 600 years, if we emit CO2 like madmen and reach multiple tipping points.

mostly because they are not the important part in ocean rise: the entire polar cap and all glacier melting would mean less than half meter of ocean level raise. to compare, every degree of heating mean around three quarters of a meter rise. the big one will the permafrost (it it will take long time to all the water slowly reach the ocean) and greenland melting. even those will be two or so degrees worth of rise, so temperature will be the greatest contributor for it.

@@thorin1045 Melting polar caps and glaciers would raise sea level by 60m...

@@old-pete nope, less than half a meter, not that hard to check, what you meant is the antarctic, but that is a continent, not a polar cap. and even that is closer to 5-10 meter, and not sixty.

@@thorin1045 The antarctic is a polar cap... And yes, that are around 60m.

They cannot be built fast enough, are expensive and get even more expensive when they cannot providd base load.

you can't and you shouldn't

We cant

If anybody doesn’t think that all the things like carbon dioxide, no the other greenhouse gases, that trap hundreds of time more heat. Along with habitat destruction, destroying our soil to monoculture, the list is immensely long…. if you don’t think that we are playing huge role in how fast is happening then you were literally blowing to reality it have delusions… you need to get out into the field with botanists, ecologists, and all those alike to see the damage we are doing it is beyond comprehensible. To deny this is just pure ignorance…. For example, soil is great at trapping carbon dioxide. In Illinois use to be 22 million. Acres of Prairie now there’s 2500…… literally look and find out what native plants are suppose to be around you, go around you neighborhood and see if there’s any…. These plans evolved with the insects and animals and bacteria in the soil to use nutrients trap carbon dioxide among many other beneficial things to the ecology there… and it doesn’t exist. We have destroyed it all. These things have evolved over millions of years. We have a literally killed off 60% of all animals in all bird population since the 1950s or maybe in the last 50 years….. everything is contaminated with PFAS and herbicides…. To think you aren’t delusional or stuck in some information silo is to be denying reality.

The sad part is distrust of institutions increases in times of famine, war, economic distress, etc. All of this will escalate exponentially as climate change continues. There is good critical thinking that can and should be applied to institutions and conclusions thereof. But climate change is not one of those issues. You cannot make a broad statement that nothing can be trusted. It helps no one but elites and changes nothing. It leads to the demos broadly using it as a permission structure to reject anything uncomfortable, which happens to fold nicely into corporate exploration of people and the environments they need. If you /want/ to distrust everything for do-my-own-research, which overwhelmingly when stated means "I look at yt videos and read clickbait," there's nothing, no argument that can be said that can change your mind unless it feeds into dopamine receptors triggered by sensationalism, ergo the brain spiral into the yarn ball of conspiracies.

Tyranny! The order of the day!! And those on top wouldn't have it any other way!!! This is the rule and has been Always. When has it ever been possible to trust centralized power of any kind? Accountability and transparency are anathema to Power, and corruption of intent is all but assured by Unchecked Power.

cuz its propaganda buddy

@@Luke-ym7oy bruh

@@Luke-ym7oy noob

It’s a scam. A war they can fight forever, even after they’re done with Ukraine and Taiwan 💸

@@Luke-ym7oy What's the alternative if you're wrong buddy?

Trees and the oceans absorb C02 but nothing is said about sulphur hexafluride a man made gas used by electricity companies 23000 times worse for the environment than C02 and cannot dissipate for over a thousand years 🤫

Your assumption is not correct. In fact it's plankton which absorbs the most CO2 during photosynthesis.

Absorption isn't important. Storage is. Seeing we're removing trapped carbon from the ground, we'd need more living trees than the earth can support to hold all the carbon we've added.

@@MikeisFunnyCollection It's not carbon . It is carbon dioxide. It's essential in the cycle called photosynthesis. Most of the air you are breathing contains oxygen produced by plankton. 70% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere was produced in the oceans.

@brianterence3211 it is carbon. The carbon in the carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels which were trapped either in coal or oil. The oxygen in carbon dioxide was already part of our biom in the atmosphere. The plankton and trees break that bond and re-release the oxygen. But don't trap the carbon back in the earth. Especially plankton that has a short life cycle, is either eaten or rots. Re-releasing the carbon. Trees can store the carbon much longer, but it comes down to biomass. We aren't reusing the carbon already up here. We're pulling more trapped carbon. So we need more trees every day to remove the carbon that was not previously part of our ecosystem.

There were quite a lot of measurements back then. But there was obviously no reason to calculate global temperatures back then.

All these data are laughable and you can interpret them as you want.

@@kg0173 Only for people of no understanding of the matter

most people don't like any change

@@doolsy Did you watch the video?

​@@doolsySays who? Your Facebook _"friends?"_

@@upgradeplans777 yes. Why?

@@doolsy I don't even have a Twitter account. Never been a fan of pretending to be something you're not. Meeting your friends in person is much more enjoyable than staring at an LCD screen.

Who will then immediately cede all power to their rich investor friends who use it to enrich themselves.

Say no more!!

Many problems have been solved by governments in the past. You're cherry picking if you think governments have never done anything for society.

@@eliaspanayi3465 Who will then hire those same politicians to be their CEO once (if) they retire.

1. Scientists are usually not funded by politicians 2. The fossil fuel industry does a lot of funding 3. Climate change was discovered around 50 years before politicians or the fossil fuel industry got involved

When you mix science and politics...you get politics. It is often stated by politicians: "In the latest IPCC report it says doom and gloom will happen very soon and humans are to blame". But there are 2 reports, the actual IPCC reports don't speak of any climate emergency. It does say that humans have an impact on Earth, but it doesn't say that we are the main contributor of climate change. But there is a "Report for policy makers" that is used to scare the public and push an agenda. Which is where that UN warning label on all YT climate videos comes from.

@@old-pete Please tell me you're a young person? Here's one simple example- Next time you watch legacy media what commercials are playing - Big Pharma 1970- Global cooling, 1980-2000 global warming,.... today- climate change....= fear-mongering guess were Obama and all the American elites that cry about climate change?.....Marthas Vineyard...right by the beach..sure, climate change , right???

@@ronja6791 100% and the so called 97 percent of scientist that agree on climate change?....well what was the questioned asked? Do humans add c02 to the atmosphere?...of course...and does the climate change?....of course....the ( WEF) twisting the words that 97% of scientists believe in this climate catastrophe...clever

​@@old-peteany research at all that gets government $ or grants is "funded by politicians" By definition 😂

Thermometers outside urban areas show the same increase...

@@old-pete That's just false. This has already been studied. You can search it yourself.

@@old-pete There are thermometers in urban environments which grew up around them, there are some in rural locations, there are sea based thermometers and there are satellite based thermometers. Look at the evidence for yourself. I am not here to prove anything to you.

@@TribalGlobe I did look it up and contrary to you scientist know about the heat island effect for over 200 years. They compensate for it and the data from outside cities show the warming. With satellite measuring the effect can be shown for the most isolated places on this planet.

@@old-pete no they don't!

That cuts into the profits, so it's out of the question.

Habitats store some carbon, but they aren't as good at it as systems engineered to store lots of carbon.

I'm with you. Need more plants to suck up CO2 and Make Oxygen. Problem Solved.

The ocean generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by these emissions.

@@donaldhobson8873 by “some” carbon, you mean all the carbon that has ever been stored until the invention of these engineered systems. By what measure are they “better” than habitats, particularly considering they don’t operate independent of or without an effect on habitats?

It’s be nice if the science actually made sense 97% of scientist agree something is happening meaning more than 0 nobody can predict ANYTHING about it

start with the elite giving up their private jets and yachts then stop sending consumer goods halfway around the globe then build many nuclear power plants then i will take our govt solutions seriously

Simply telling the truth is not fear mongering lmao

Why did the Scotland government cut down 17 million trees?

Truth is not fear-mongering. You are just too stupid to read science.

It's propaganda in a velvet glove.

The main scientific problem I have. Is the complete lack of SURFACE TEMPS showing increased mimicking the estimated air temps. "Estimated" because many "measured temps" are actually computer modeled temps based on actual thermometer temps. If the software models are biased one way or another, and there is no way to tell as citizens, then we are uninformed. At the University of Colorado's Mountain Research Center, located at 2900 m (9500 feet) in the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies, an interdisciplinary facility associated with the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the surface data during the recent time has NOT increased. Check it out. Yes, CO2 has, but it's effect on the ground seems to have hardly moved the needle. If hysteria is warranted this needs to be explained. The nearest upwind city is Salt Lake City some 300 miles and multiple mountain ranges to the west, and then Sacramento and San Francisco., 850-900 miles away. As a geologist I am very impressed with the data you showed on your graphs. As geologists we, of course, have known about all this historical temperature data and when Gore's film came out we all just chuckled and went about our business. As it became clear that there was finally a way for governments to control our use of energy, which attempt, had been happening for years, it became more clear that there may be an underlying agenda behind the hysteria. Since you are one of the first brave people to buck some of the medias' message of disaster happening tomorrow, I beg you to examine the data in light of poor to no surface data collection and the governments' increasingly strident desire for control.

It sounds like Al Gore movie to me.

​@@peterpetrov5831elaborate

The IPCC was caught defrauding the data in 2009. Look at the leaked emails. Try to understand.

the chart only goes up to 40%, you could say that the nuclear went off the charts

Fukushima. Tchernobyl. Earthquakes. Reality. Death.

Not specifically about the graph, but building new nuclear isn't as tractable as it seems. At this point, new reactors are too expensive to build, and will take too long to be operational to make the difference they need to make, with the lengthy construction process continuously emitting lots of carbon dioxide from concrete and transport requirements. For generation, renewables are cheaper, and quicker to build. As for the energy security problem from weather fluctuations, I think nuclear is a red herring solution for the reasons above, and what needs to be done is further investment and research into new energy storage.

Nuclear could be useful long term, but the time it takes given the process of getting them started means that they are not useful immediate solutions. It would require some more immediate solutions simultaneous to getting nuclear going. Personally, I agree that nuclear would be very useful, additionally, it would be amazing if Fusion technology produces results relatively soon. However, we still need to phase out carbon emitting sources as quick as we can so slow down the rate of change. For now only stuff like solar and wind can help mitigate that until we get more nuclear and other sources. The biggest hurdle to nuclear is finding places where the locals will let you build one. I agree that its frustrating that there doesn't seem to be more effort on the nuclear path. Although given Fukushima, Chernobyl, and recent concerns regarding the nuclear plant in Ukraine under Russian occupation could all contribute to politicians seeing nuclear as a being politically "radioactive."

It’s the only real solution to get rid of coal burning.

We don't have accurate records for even 100 yrs. Sensor locations change, surroundings of those sensors change, there is a formula they use to calculate the "average" temperature. Now they add satelitte sensors. So no we do not have a consistent real global temperature for the past 100 years.

No where near that long, not even 50 years. It's only quite recently that sensors and satellites have been widely distributed.

Ice cores go to 800,000 years ago!

@@GaymerPunkIce cores provide proxy measurement. They don't give actual temperature readings and aren't extremely accurate either in time or value. Like the OP says, they provide "rough" temperatures.

the earth has been around for billions of years. it would take much longer than 100 years to observe an entire span of fluctuation

Climate scientist know the urban heat island effect for 200 years. They compensate for it. Areas outside cities show a similar warming.

@@old-pete Sorry, but climate scientists like Tony Heller (he has a RU-vid channel) argue that this is NOT the case. The "official" scientists actually do NOT adapt for it. And exactly that leads to falsified data. And he actually backs it up with facts and data. That is the reason why all this controversy even exists. Like the sea level raise which happens at a constant rate and which doesn't accelerate due to the alleged overheating of the planet.

No it doesn't

People are too stupid, immature and apathetic to change their destructive behaviors.

An argument?? No, no.. If we were only as bad off as that.. I reckon we're at opinions only now, more or less. Hell, if even that!? More like, unfounded, ungrounded, mostly emotionally based, entitled opinions.. 🙈🙉🙊

@@kinjunranger140 You said it did.

@@coraltown1 There is no identifiable man-made CC. But what the timelines do overlay with, are milestones for autonomy: 2035 and 2050 are interestingly both key dates for each. BOTH require a massive decrease/culling of the human herd.

Exactly. Worse case you helped clean up the planet so it's not covered in trash. Best case you saved the planet and humanity from destroying itself. lol

yes, each of us must be responsible. to leave it as it was, or better. most of these 'tool's are being paid to do something else. condition us.

@@prestonburton8504 If by 'tools' you mean the lobbyists, they are paid to stupefy the ppl. Hence, we now have Trump!

The IPCC has now incorporated environmental degrading into its assessments as part of the issues affecting Earth's balances. We just started banning PFAS and PFOS chemicals in some new manufacture. Unfortunately our plastics today are loaded with them. Other toxic chemicals banned in Western countries are still being used in some developing countries. These get circulated everywhere, and are very hard to clean up.

We can adapt to changing climate conditions, but not to poisoning our soil and water. The pollution of the Oceans, Air and Ground are definitely the biggest concerns for me personally.

Vulcanism did not change. Tidal forces did not change. The moon does a pretty good job in that regard. Everything else is minor. Earth is hit with decreasing amounts of solar radiation for thousands of years. Earth is heating up anyway.

Living in fear is no life. IME everything ends 😊

Exactly

I know some loggers. I can hook you up.

hero!!!

I had something similar lmao. We had debates. We were assigned the topic and which side we would debate for. Basically, I had to debate about using animals as testing subjects for medications. My side would fight to keep testing on animals and other side had to fight to stop using animals and instead use lab created organs or whatever they're called. Organs grown in a lab. I guess it's safe to assume I lost that one badly. Especially when my opponents side had 3 person group, my side had a 2 person group because we ran out of students. On top of that, I had the special needs student in my team. So it was me and a special needs guy. Add that he didn't do anything for the research and couldn't even debate properly on the day of. Add that I had the losing side to debate. Add that I'm competitive and didn't take that loss very well lmao.

Very interesting. Well played. That should go further and be used more. ‘How would you like a world without trees?’

I am sure you must have researched the topic. There is plenty of evidence that cuttign down the rainforest would have a beneficial effect. More CO2 would be obsorbed, provided the soil is not disturbed and a new forsst can grow in its place.

This whole field of study has been corrupt for decades. Descenting voices have been eliminated . You were indoctrinated not given a balanced education. The "political agenda" was baked in long ago. Rapid change is not new. The Greenland ice core contains 10 deg. cooling in a few decades at one point. Most of the long proxy records have several centuries or millennia between data points, so simply would not record rapid changes like the present. Saying rapid change never happened before is a constructed lie that the author picked up because he does not know the subject. You neither it would seem.

No you dont know anything. You think you do but you dont. Climate change is the first and foremost political agenda, it prevents growth and substance. Germany played the climate changes games and then fell short when they dont have enough energy to sustain their own people.

Politicians aren’t smart enough to have a political agenda that you seem to think exists. There is only one agenda : money. When principles get in the way of money, they go out the window. And that isn’t true of only politicians. When there is more quick money to be made by reducing CO2 than by burning oil, that will become the next political ‘agenda’.

But that little self indulgent rant aside, I agree totally.

Guess they didn't manage to teach you the scientific method, eh?

Earth is hit decreasing amounts of solar radiation for around 8000 years.

@@old-pete Are you trying to argue that disproves my point? The cycle is about 12000 years, that only shows I'm right and that the heat from the sun isn't constant

@@TheAdderkop No. The solar cycles are short term. There are different cycles, which can weaken or strengthen each other, which have nothing to do with solar output. They are known as Milankovitch Cycles. And the current cycle is a cooling one, which started 8000 years ago and will last another 50k years.

Clickbait title

Browser add-ons are your friend. Get the like-dislike ratio back.

I've gone off it now. It's just another fearmongering video.

@@Rayblondie nope, it is a science video tho

He claims it will be HIS most disliked video. Not the most disliked on the entire platform. And creators can still see dislikes.

The worst thing is, even the politicians who criticize others on global warming, don't do anything about it when they're in power. Also personally they have huge carbon footprints. The NZ and Canadian Prime Ministers flew in a private jet after a global warming conference.

Whose 🤔

politics in at all is problem in science

@@TheRilluma there's pro and anti science politics

People can change their behaviour, no need for politics in that case. Though it would help.

Why should more accurate measurements be higher?

At times they could be lower. The problem is that short-term fluctuations, up and down, are suppressed in the older data. So a short-term upstroke around a smoother trend would look like a spike if one didn't account for the different time resolution. If I average hours of sunlight over a week, then append the first 12 hours of the next day it's going to look like a runaway sunshine crisis. @@old-pete

@@stevenpostrel4901 Hourly data is hardly a problem with a one year resolution.

@@old-pete It's very much a problem. The older data smooth and average across years, while the recent data are at much higher frequency without smoothing.

I find this video unreliable * There are no links to data sources in this video * There is no public debate by independent scientists on this topic because it is inconvenient for the current narrative and political correctness * Carbon dioxide has a specific gravity lower than air * Therefore, the more carbon dioxide, the more intensively vegetation develops...

@@Kurkuma10 CO2 is plant food and the people that scream the most that it is bad and CO2 must be lowered are also the ones that cry about deforrestation. make it make sense.

@@notsure1783more co2 traps more heat in the atmosphere. This causes a global climate change that happens too fast for organisms to adapt. Before the industrial revolution, volcanic eruptions would cause similar effects (at varying levels of intensity) through shooting carbon sequestered in the earth’s crust into the atmosphere. It’s all about balance, too much carbon makes a very warm globeal climate, and a lack of atmosphereic carbon can cause “a snowball earth” as mentioned in the video. Also the US military knew about climate change since the 70s. TLDR: high carbon levels are bad for us as it is changing the climate faster than organisms (and humans) can adapt. This can cause a massive collapse in biodiversity, so it’s cool if you want unique animals to go extinct and famine due to it’s impact on food production

@@notsure1783 @kurkuma10 ​​⁠even if that’s true, helping vegetation =/= good for humans. That’s like saying ‘oh our bodies make for great soil nutrition. I guess I should kill myself!

@@notsure1783 While also ignoring the fact that the current level of CO2 is at the lower limit necessary to maintain photosynthesis.

PHONY mafia racket $$$$ Started in 1973, when the racketeers FIRST tried calling it "The New Ice Age". They then changed the name 2 more times $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

@CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes ---- Im a geologist. Wayne Patterson --- No, you are actually pretending to be a geologist, because you are practicing a pseudoscience when you pretend to know the Alarmist Climate Change to be "common knowledge to the geoscience crowd for several decades now." CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes --- I went to University in the late 90s and graduated in 2002. This has all been common knowledge to the geoscience crowd for several decades now. Wayne Patterson --- In other words, you voluntarily allowed your self to be indoctrinated into adopting a cult's mass delusion and pseudoscience rather than learn how to practice science and the scientific method. The video is pure false propaganda by using faked data. The video uses imaginary temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists as substitutes for the historical temperature observations. Descriptions of the methods for fabricating the temperature data is included with each edition of the datasets and their documentation files. There is no significant and Human caused increase in atmospheric Carbon dioxide concentrations. The present Carbon dioxide levels are LOWER or about EQUAL to the 415 ppm average and 574 maximum levels observed in 1827-1829 and the below and above 400 ppm averages and the 550 ppm maximum observed in 1939-1941. The observational evidence demonstrates how the imaginary numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists and presented in this video have zero scientific validity.

@@waynepatterson5843can you cite your sources?

@@ac1119His source: trust me, bro.

I completely changed my mind after watching Randall Carlson

@@helpmboab2034 Is that some random words you just either willingly or inadvertently typed out, or am I seriously meant to make sense out of it?

More Than 1,600 Scientists Declare Apocalyptic Global Warming a Myth BY ANDREW MIILLER • SEPTEMBER 3, 2023 Acoalition of 1,609 scientists and professionals have signed a declaration stating they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed around the globe. The declaration, published on August 14 by the Global Climate Intelligence Group, states: Natural as well as human factors cause warming. Warming is far slower than predicted. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. CO2 is plant food (the basis of all life on Earth). Global warming has not increased natural disasters. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. The most recent signatory of the declaration is Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for work on entangled photons. Red environmentalism: Burning fossil fuels may have some limited effect on global temperatures, but it’s hard to tell because repeated scientific fraud has clouded the issue. Reasonable people want clean air, water and soil for themselves and others, so radical central planners are highly motivated to mix concern for the environment in with their socialist ideology. This strategy also makes socialist activists, journalists and politicians highly motivated to hijack and exaggerate concerns about the environment to literally doomsday-level proportions. When a course of action (such as soil remediation) would help the environment but do nothing for the socialist agenda, they ignore it. When a course of action would hurt the environment (such as giving a pass to the world’s biggest polluter, which happens to be Communist), they go for it. Deadly distraction: What you see in the news isn’t a may-the-best-facts-win scientific debate. It is the result of manipulation designed to frighten people into surrendering their God-endowed rights to a central planning committee. Many scientists scoff at the notion that God controls the weather, but the book of Job states that God balances the vapors of the clouds and warms the Earth with a south wind (Job 37:16-17). God commands the clouds to do His will, whether for mercy or for correction (verses 12-13). Psalm 148 shows this understanding of God’s power, stating, “Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word” (verse 8). Such passages confirm that God controls the sun and balances the gases that compose the clouds. They also confirm that God sends fire and stormy winds to fulfill His promises. Learn more: Read “Greenhouse Apocalypse.” E-MAIL ANDREW MIILLER OR FOLLOW ANDREW MIILLER ON TWITTER/𝕏

​@@RonanGallagherBandI understood it by picturing him as a British accented Disney character 😂. He is saying that they are adding dramatic effects by saying they had to hide the info. Embellishment hooks listeners and readers.

@@helpmboab2034I'm not sure what you are saying. Then again, between Disney analogies and a lack of substance I'm not sure if you understand what you're saying either. Are you saying the Climate Change thing is false? Not sure what your point is. Are you? 😊

I bet you’re real fun to be around 😂😂

That is why scientists evaluate the data, not you. The heat island effect is known for around 200 years. Scientists can compensate for that. The temperatures outside the cities show the same warming.

It is just physics. And no, CO2 does not create heat. The south pole is colder than the US. Similar CO2 content.

Also because it was the most ordinary take on climate change. Like wow, the earth is heating up, we need to stop that or animals will go extinct. This information was freely available in 2009. Outside of USA, this topic is not controversial in the slightest.

well they technically said *their own* most disliked video.

​@@meapyboy12345 well the title technically says the most disliked video on youtube

@@n0denz doesn't the title say "My Most Disliked Video On RU-vid"? also didn't mean to sound rude earlier but it does kind of come with making these types of comments.

Well, YT pushed it onto my home feed just now, and I'm watching it. I'm two thirds of the way thru, and they've only mentioned politics as a side effect of some other story, and they described those issues as a future historian would, rather than as a political troll, so I really appreciate it.

That's for sure. But it woud only cover CO2 emissions from deflorestation, not from fossil fuel. So it is necessary but not enough. We also need to capture carbon in other ways. Bioconstruction, for example

And depopulationing the planet, a return to animal fur, sheep shearing, cotton farming and silkworm production of clothing and other material based things, horse and buggy transportation because of evil oil.

Many like me find it madness that whole forests are being felled to make way for 'renewables' such as Wind & Solar banks, they themselves require enormous amounts of Fossil Fuels to Mine, Muster, Build, Spare, Repair, Support through to decommissioining.

Plants don't capture CO2 , they capture C and release O2. But with atmosphaeric CO2 concentration as low as it is right now, there is no need for capturing C at all.

That sounds fair. Jeff Bezos gets to travel the world on his private jet and yacht with his girlfriend and her ex while the rest of us have to ration what we consume.

You are the carbon they want to get rid off

@@carlt6932 I’m glad your onboard sir. Someone has to eat the bugs so there’s still enough beef for the wealthy to have their filet mignon when things get tight next decade.

A lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that all of these lifestyle changes effecting the standard of living will be burdened on the shoulders of the middle class.

We are the carbon they want to get rid of

I mean.. chernobyl and fukushima were pretty convincing scare tactics. But I agree, I'd much rather have nuclear than coal.

The problem with nuclear is that the technology will soon pass a point where ROI is too low to justify the building of new reactors.... It's just not an affordable solution. Nuclear's effectiveness has peaked, while renewables has just started, and in 2050 renewables have won in terms efficiency.

​@PixelShade what does ROI mean?

@@clydekimsey7503 Return of investment.

You have no answers for radioactive waste. Nuclear power is even not really cheap and still the technology is not safe

Richard Muller found when he was financed by fossil fuel interests to conduct his own investigation into temperature records, which he undertook in order to refute the "hockey stick." Instead, he found that late 20th century warming was anomalous in the historical record and that the only plausible correlation was to anthropogenic CO2.

Thanks for that suggestion. Always good to learn about other sources.

why don't make a video on the ozone layer hole instead? maybe because that climate scare hoax has been exposed already.

They tell you TRUTH is plural.

What is the average concentration of the strongest climate gas - water vapor - in the atmosphere? What do you think? 14,000 ppm !! But the 100 ppm human CO² cause a climate catastrophe? Yes of course. Who believes it becomes blessed. 😆🤣

muh alternate faxts 😢

I mean the video isn't really controversial.

nope. cut down the trees and put in the solar and wind farms!!!!

@@mistaajonesgreat idea, because trees have zero effect on local humidty and temperature, none at all.

​@@mistaajoneslol, right? I tried to listen till I saw propaganda bear. That polar bear was debunked as a diseased specimen. Polar bear populations are growing. Polar ice extant is growing yearly. The climate-tastrafy narrative is falling apart. It's a global money harvesting machine that has everyone addicted to terror though. Like a train it's going to keep rolling for a while.

Here you go on I 95 cut the trees down in the median there is a little decline valley like now there is water buildup on spend more money put in a drain system.dang the trees sucked the water up and took in CO2 and put out .smart move think not lol But guess what the drain not working.water ponds still there guess what else.mesequitos . anyways we can just spray chemicals and kill em 😁

@@darrelv764How erudite.

And when they talk about animals going extinct and they show polar bears....who are thriving btw

@jmace1957 steam is in fact a form of pollution. Water vapor is now the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

@@bradymoon1889 how long polar bears survive remains to be seen. The chance that they will successfully adapt to radically changing conditions is 50/50. They either will or they won't. If they do go extinct it will probably be fairly soon.

@@bradymoon1889 You appear to be quoting a Forbes-sponsored "researcher" who is not relevantly qualified and has never done any relevant research on polar bears and whose phoney research was debunked a decade ago.

@@dingusdingus2152 so thats why the planets heating up, its covered in water

It would help a bit, but would not solve the problem.

There is nothing wrong with simple. IME 😅

The planet is greening as predicted by mainstream climate science, but most of the current global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take four times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water.

Remember that trees absorb most CO2 when they are growing fast when they are young. So if we harvested mature trees and planted half a dozen new trees for every one cut down, there should be a net increase of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere.

Great attitude 🤬

I love that!

We can't solve the issue just by planting trees, though that's still a good thing. 1 The extra co2 doesn't just come from cutting down forests, most of it was trapped safely underground and even if you reforested the entire planet that portion would still be an issue. 2 You can't reforest the entire planet because we need a high percentage of the land that's not glacier or desert as farmland to feed more than 7 billion people.

All of the Carbon Capture projects combined have so far managed to capture less than a day's* worth of humanity's emissions. Hopefully we'll get better at scaling it, but for now I'll keep planting as many trees as I can. (*I think it's actually about 10 minutes' worth, but I'll be vague so I'm less likely to be wrong).

I'm not a climate alarmist or anything, so I know you're right. But nothing wrong with more trees where possible anyways my dude. Let's have more of them. They're nice to look at.

You must be used to raking up leaves and cleaning out your roof gutters?

See: The USA's southern border with Mexico. ;)

like others before. Ever studied the younger Dryas temp fluctuations 13000 to 11 000 years ago? They still fight about the cause of the extremely rapid and short drop. What is the effect the massive deforestations since 1800 ? Who says they are not the cAUSE?

yes, this will also will be true for our species... the right wing radicals in my country in europe are: totally against immigration, and totally against taking action against climate change. i alwas tell them, then they have to set up a lot of weapons and ammunition factories, because they will have to shoot tens of millions of refugees at the borders to europe in the mid future, that will come because of climate change and spreading wars due to the enviroment failing to support half a billion people at the half to the end of this century.

There is massive migration in Europe and USA now. It has NOTHING to do with climate.

Living in snow country takes a lot of energy. To reduce FF use, northern migration should be strongly discouraged.

There's nothing controversial about it.

@@nilssonakerlund2852 Exactly lol.

And we can already see why this will be controversial

Exactly.

​@@doolsy You wish

Sorry it's just not profitable to save humanity.

You saying that the UN wouldn’t be contracting the companies and enriching the elite profiteers?

Why should this be done with funds from the UN? Is there a price to pay with those funds? Why does the UN have this kind of money if they are not a corporation that produced and sells goods?

You can only refresh desserts with water from somewhere else. You can’t count on that

In the US and most of the world we accepted the idea that any movement must be profitable to be worthy of success. The fact that corporate interests will make profit off of EVs or windfarms or solar farms or nuclear isn't a reason to discredit the principle. It is unfortunately the bargain we struck after colonialism ended. These structures must make insane profit.

Solar forcing is indeed important, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum. No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It's a red herring when folk claim these forcing do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales. The Urban Heat Effect has no significant influence on the record of global temperature trends.

I disliked the video because of his adoration of the IPCC, - a hopelessly ideological and politically motivated organization that is divorced from sound science.

​@@slooob23got evidence backing up or just parroting/inventing a sentiment?

@@Shoey69 yes, the IPCC was caught in an email scandal where they deliberately manipulated data for political and ideological purposes. This among many, many other unscientific proclamations and ideologically derrived action that is an affront to sound scientific process. If a person blindly believes anything that they say at this point, they are either ignorant or tribally aligned with the ideology behind this faux scientific organization.

its super easy to look it up, its all a scam. idk why you guys don't just research it on your own. its easy to debunk.@@Shoey69

Which “sound science” are you referring to?

your comment says it perfectly

perfectly put, but again, just because we'll survive, is not an excuse for not doing our part to try fixing our mess.

Well there are scientific studies of cave fish evolving in 45 days so um yeah

@@thisexists2927 What mess? Technology and the use of fossil fuels has elevated the world's standard of living to its highest level in the past 10,000 years. An ever increase global population is placing strains on natural resources. This does require a real effort of conservation but government encourage consumption and then complain about it. Corporations = Consumption and governments love corporations!

What unnatural circumstances ?

There was nothing to watch in the second part of the video.

The facts are that they were hunted uncontrolled in the past. That was stopped. That has nothing to do with climate. Now their habitat is decreasing. That has to do with climate. And no, their population is around 26,000.

The polar bears they can track, some are doing relatively well, but no one knows the world's real population of polar bears is, as population estimates are just that: as subpopulations of bears haven’t been counted in decades.

Sources would be great, but you can also find each of these facts in scholarly articles by using Google. It is important for everyone to "Do their own research" Self education is a good thing.

800w power plus gold

@@brittneypagan5144 You are absolutely correct. I do, and I encourage everyone else to do their own research. I just think it's important to cite sources when one is making claims because it adds value for everyone.

​@janamations1079 Yeah I agree it's a research video. You need to put sources when you compile research in scientific settings. It's a requirement for any sort of scientific publishing. Why shouldn't videos have similar standards even if their primary demographic is lay people.

The sources that AGW cult members use are paid by the government to produce numbers to scare new members into believing the science. So, there’s that.

Those private jets are for the lobbyists fighting against climate change. They are literally the people trying to sabotage the conferences,

when a cabal or secret family spends its entire life benefiting themselves and keeping their power over humanity while not helping humanity in countless opportunities, let alone hurt humanity why would they care about this

@@awesomestevie27 If there really was anything to worry about they'd be building nuclear power plants like there's no tomorrow. Instead just the thought of an existing solution makes them foam at the mouths, because that'd ruin the grift...

@@solaroid4442 Nuclear power plants won't do squat unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Stopping fossil fuel use is the only real solution, and fossil fuels are what is making rich people rich. They aren't worried, because they have enough money for them and their families to be fine. You and your family are something they just don't care about.

exactly.

That does not apply every time. See current warming and the Siberian Traps Event.

@@old-pete How many times does it apply?

@@old-pete At what precise intervals do you find it convenient to apply the theory?

@@Krusty-kl5ej There are no precise intervalls. Vulcanoes and human actions do not run on a clock.

@@old-pete and why would humans have any influence? The long term data negates any influence from CO2 at these concentrations

yet the presenter proceeds to ignore the data and push human made climate change agenda.

Garbage data in garbage data out

It is very humbling, but not in the way you suggest. To think that people form their impassioned opinions based on data collected and interpreted is this manner absolutely boggles the mind. Holy cow are people arrogant and stupid.

Just imagine the margin of error in that data. 10-15% perhaps? Yet today's 'unusual' warming is what 2-3% if that. Yet we draw a quite interesting conclusion. One might wonder why... Let alone the fact that we gather data about our own sun which keeps on rocking the science community. You know the sun which fuels our life and the climate.

@@DigitalsapienYou don’t even have to look back millions of years to realize that the current rise in temperature is abnormal. There’s a reason every scientific organization takes this stuff seriously. Right wing media and random people who have no idea what they’re talking about aren’t going to change that

Do you mean when they pass laws about wearing seat belts to save your life? OR do you mean like when they tell you to inject disinfectant or stick a strong light in your body to kill the covid virus?... then yeah, I agree... don't listen to your goverment on this one.

Safe reaction

Lole this is still letting them dictate what you should do. If they say “don’t buy this thing” then you buy it but what if they actually wanted you to do it?

Sure sure ... because a seat belt has never saved a life...right?

@@notme2day Intentionally taking his words as literally as possible is awfully dishonest is it not?

Looks like Toby Young is pretty smart.

If climate changers really want to do something they would push weather manipulation and Geo weathering that’s the fastest way to save the planet So people can still continue using fossil fuels, but we will manipulate the weather or they should be pushing putting gold in the atmosphere to reflect the heat rays of the sun. The technology is already there. Saudi Arabia makes it rain in the desert by doing cloud seeds, but that’s just my opinion .

People can't listen when they don't understand what's being said. If you went into a lecture on "Non-Gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity" you wouldn't pay attention after you realised it was all going over your head. That's why the number one thing when you encounter skeptics and deniers is not to attack, but to explain. Tell them what you know in words they'll understand. Spare no detail if they ask for more credible information. So long as you speak what's true then no arguments can counter it

Look up John Kay. He wrote a good book about this. NOT the musician.

..it's about money of course, one trillion and counting but they want 17 trillion more last time I checked, could be far higher now.

The problem is everything is just sensory input to our minds. There's no such thing as true, only what is orthodox to the internal model our 250,000 wildly obsolete instincts create to navigate uncertainty and a worlď far more vast and complex than our brains can handle without a forest of mental shortcuts. Our minds handle those orthodoxies as though they're a body part - people trend toward reinforcement for the same reason they're loath to mash their hand into a hot plate, the instincts take it as a physical safety risk.

I start by saying. Humans are destined to extinct themselves. Any objections? its just a question how many other species we will bring down before we go down.

Yup, and they also usually oppose GMOs which could help us replace fossil fuels and plastic.

Because Nuclear Power is an effective form of alternative energy that comes from free-market Capitalism. Most of the activists for Climate Change are on the political left, and they aren't interested in real solutions to help the environment, what they're interested in is more taxes, government regulations, and massive redistribution of wealth. "Climate Change" has been weaponized by the media, activists, and politicians for their own personal gain and benefit. If you want to spend trillions of dollars on various government programs that won't actually fix the climate, then you're pushing a sinister, hidden agenda to impoverish the populace instead of looking for actual smart solutions to help the environment.

​@@ryans8081If nuclear power comes from the free market, why are companies not building them without subsidies?

Heat from nuclear is also contributing to global warming, but not as much as excess CO2 at the moment. It will be more of an issue later on though.

Look up “Solar Cycle: and “Introduction to Solar Radiation”. Solar energy output is highly predictable, on time scales relevant to humans. Total solar irradiance (energy output) varies one part in a thousand on an eleven year cycle. Another part in a thousand when there's a pause in sunspots. These well known variations have no correlation with climate.

great idea. that would be interesting

there is a channel "suspicious observers" who have a lot of information on that topic. and they give a daily space weather report. yes there is space weather and it has a huge effect on earths climate.

No matter how many failed predictions, they will always be "right"

​​@@destroya3303I don't think a 7th grade science teacher is representative of what's been predicted. For the most part, scientists have been fairly accurate.

@@santaclaws1501 I disagree. He represents many of the silly predictions being published in the corporate press by "respected" scientists. The Maldives will be under water already. Snow in Britain will be a thing of the past. Polar Bears will go extinct. The Arctic will be ice free in 2013. 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (written in 2005). Only 10 years left to stop CO2 before it's too late (in the 1990s) The Great Barrier reef is dying (now it's doing better than ever)

Same "rubbish" been said by Parliament and Local Government in our Country. The sea has not risen so much as 1cm in 60 years AT ALL!!! They do not have a "clue" re. Glacial Ice Melt; etc.! 🤠

this. we have been hearing the same story since the 50's. Pretty much nothing has changed after every catastrophic warning. I hate it when people say scientist(s) plural say. Majority of the world's scientists don't have consensuses on this subject. too much contradicting data. This is why people don't listen nor care. Too many times someone cried wolf. Even if climate change was true, no one cares. I am from Africa. The temperatures have not really changed that much, 2-4 degrees (Celsius) hotter in summer than 30 years ago. We are used to hot temperatures, so we don't really see a difference.

How I understand, “Waaagh give me power or we all are going to die… waaaah I want to be most important president.”

I don’t understand what you mean. Global warming is causing mass species die off, it is directly impacting our food and water systems. This video doesn’t dispute that. Chicken Little was lying, the scientists who say we must take drastic steps immediately are speaking with factual basis for their claims, which this video also backs up.

the world needs to change, apoltical and factual aren't mutually exclusive

Pretty pictures of steam coming out of coolers (no pollution there) and comments about sea levels rising (they are not) rather undermine this.

@@ArstotzkaEmpire”Waagh” why are you talking about Warhammer orks?

Well I's also like to understand how something like this can be stated as fact considering we don't have 20000 yrs of data. We also have no way of knowing what the exact tilt of the earth has been throughout history. These are all theoretical numbers but always treated as proven fact - like so much in the climate culture

​@@russagrusa7024The tilt can easily be calculated. Just say it was at zero tilt now and it's a 100k year cycle. So it takes 100k years to return to zero tilt to complete a cycle, so 25k yrs ago it was at half tilt, 50k was full tilt, 75k was back to half tilt and 100k, it's at zero again. Then at 125k, back to half, 150k, at full tilt and you keep calculating out and see what the temperature was at that time by looking at the known data (ice cores etc).

People older than you explained the mechanics. The process is going on since long before you were born.

Lying with logical fallacies and convenient half-truths: it's the Plimer way. That's why he works for the GWPF. This is the guy that knows that water vapour is a feedback entirely dependent on temperature and does not have as much control over the greenhouse effect because, as he says, it precipitates quickly out of the atmosphere. 
In other words, he asserts that water vapour is the most important ghg, implying that CO2 is not important, then states a banal fact that actually shows why CO2 is more important to regulating temperature. Plimer's expertise is in mining engineering and that his salary often depends literally on climate science being false.

no, it is implied in geologic history, that´s why people hate that expression

​@@sanji1259I have never heard someone say "the planet is the hottest it's ever been" referring to the entire life of that planet. It's always been implied that it's the hottest it's ever been in human history as that's the only point which is relevant to our survival. It's certainly a very open statement that can be taken either way and often lacks context when it's said.

@@sanji1259absolutely not LMAO. Who the fuck think the planet can ever be hotter than it was when it was a ball of magma in the early days?

@@user-sw2nh4ll7h People who never learnt about the early days of Earth/forgot the information if they ever even absorbed it

It’s been the same temperature where I live for the past 48 years. Not interested in any forever wars. Plus I don’t give a sht what earth does, it will not last forever and neither will humans

It's really hard to believe the "nagging" if you don't live in big cities. I live in a small agricultural town near a city of 2 million people. In every weather report, the temperature in the city is about 5-6°C higher than in my town and it's only an half an hour car drive to the city with nothing but flatland in between. This year, our government came out with a report that the number of farmers taking climate change loans has grown 600% since 2020. Well, if you take out an agricultural loan and put climate change as a reason for it, you get ridiculously low interest rates with almost no monitoring of spending. Presuming that we're taking those loans because of climate change is pretty naive. I kinda get all of the science behind it, it's just that living in an area with experience that differs so wildly from what the science is telling makes it really, really hard to get onboard.

​@@MI982 It's one thing to "get" "the science" behind it, but it's another thing entirely to understand the plethora of ways that said "science" is biased & heavily skewed to reach conclusions deemed desirable by those responsible for funding & conducting it. Sadly, the vast majority of people - not least the vast majority of scientists - are so enamoured with their conception of humanity's intellectual supremacy and infallible brilliance, it's literally inconceivable to them that maybe we don't know nearly as much as we think we do, and maybe a huge chunk of what we think we know is actually completely wrong. I could point out a dozen glaring holes in the supposedly "scientific" reasoning used in this video, and the conclusions drawn from it, without even having to really think much. If I tried, I could pinpoint dozens & dozens of places where there's gaping holes in the knowledge relied upon, not to mention the multitude of ways in which the data we're told is incontrovertible is actually rubbish, because of flaws in the way it's defined/categorised/collected/interpreted etc. The temperature differential between rural & urban areas you identified is a prime example. This is a well-known phenomenon called "urban heat islands" - and yet much of the time, the locations where temperatures are recorded are in or near these "heat islands", meaning that the temperatures logged as the official temperature is substantially higher than it is in reality when you're not surrounded by miles of concrete & steel. Every time you hear politicians & media puppets talk about how this is the hottest year on record and everything is getting way hotter and we're all gonna burn to a crisp, just remember that more often than not, they're citing temperatures that are perfectly normal and unremarkable for anyone outside cities. It's just one of the many ways they deceptively misrepresent the facts to instil fear in the population and make people easier to manipulate & control.

& the Earth doesn't even care or change like saying someone spiting in the ocean changes the level . The Grift Theas so called scientist get paid screaming the sky is falling if it wasn't. Who would give them a Dime

@@MI982 Well said! I also want to add, here in Germany they wanted to proclaim a "climate lockdown" after the corona fascism was over. They said: Summer in Germany 2023 will be the hottest ever and we need to do something against this. They already planned all kinds of tyrannic measures for the people, just that the weather and climate this year didn't want to play along. We had the coldest and rainiest summer since at least 30 years or so, so they had to cancel this nonsensical tyranny. In general, all they did during the last years here in Germany was destroying jobs. First they flooded the country with migrants (which is illegal since they travelled from supposedly war-areas into other countries like Spain, Italy or Greece first, in which there is obviously NO war. The war treaty clearly states, that the first country which is not in war is responsible to take care of these people - I don't mean to say that we as Europeans shouldn't help each other out, but our politicians were putting it in a way as if the Germans were responsible to take care of all of these people. In the end, many of these people didn't even come from war areas and they threw away their passports to claim that they came from another country, which in some cases was ridiculous, because you could clearly see from skin colours for instance that someone came from Africa while claiming he came from Syria.) Then the American government destroyed the North Stream Pipelines, cutting us off from our main energy source. Now they force people to renovate their buildings to fit ridiculous energy standards, most people cannot afford this or will just get poorer from this. They force Germans to use 65% of renewable energy in any heating installation for private homes from next year on. In general, instead of convincing people, they rather use brute force, ridiculous laws and insane penalties, which is showing their totalitarian mindset. The EU is a communistic project, support big tech by introducing all kinds of stupid laws and regulations, which are killing all innovation and competition. The taxpayers are financing their own destruction and the money which is going to the gov is spread among the big tech companies which are lobbying in Brussels. It's a big "legal mafia" system and many people still think they care about the planet. In general, the German economy is the only one which is declining in Europe now. Many businesses are forced into moving out of Germany and the high energy costs, thanks to the destruction of the oil pipelines, just make running an industry business nearly impossible here now, when you can produce with a fraction of the costs in other countries.

@@MI982 Plenty of people who don't live in cities are seeing it happen in front of them. You must be one of the lucky ones. Or perhaps you're just not paying attention to anything but the thermometer in your lounge room.

my theory is that people generally feel uncomfortable with the idea of global warming, so they press on the dislike to express dissatisfaction we are not logical creatures ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

IPCC is funded by our woke governments, Who trusts them? Not many if any.

@@ade5324 you mean we are logical creatures

Well the first mistake you are making is stating that it is factual. The reality is that no data from 1M years ago is factual - it's hypothetical. We have absolutely no way to know with 100% certainty what the temperature or CO2 level was 1M years ago and certainly not 500M years ago. An ice core or a plant can only capture what is in it's immediate surrounding. So first of all that does not represent the entire atmosphere and secondly it has an enormous margin of error.

@@russagrusa7024 "The reality is that no data from 1M years ago is factual - it's hypothetical." No, the measured particles are factual. The raw data therefor is factual. Any deductions from that, are indeed not factual but typically presented with a probability interval. Based on the data retrieved from ice cores, it is possible to make reasonably accurate estimations on temperatures and CO2 levels.

But well, on a personal level, this makes me think a couple of things. One, is that if we stop abruptly producing carbon dioxide and somehow absorb it back (not feasible with our current economy) then there's a possibility of triggering an ice age. The another is that, although the Earth has been hotter in the past, if global warming goes out of control this will undoubtedly have a potentially catastrophic impact on our society. Life will exist, us, well, maybe, but in a deplorable state. Our civilization is extremely fragile to this and that is somehow demoralizing.

@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist8 Think twice: You sucessfully conformed to the current youtube comment spam pattern epidemia. Jesus didn't do and surely wouldn't have done it this way...

I saw this title and thought "ohh this will be disliked by climate change deniers right? Because he's going too hard with the mainstream narrative or something." But he actually meant pro climate change people because he's daring to talk about factual historical data instead of just spamming fear propaganda and I think that's hilarious lol. Discourse about this subject in recent years has shifted so much that the default for most people now is not skepticism but fanaticism. That shows how powerful propaganda is.

@@thekamotodragon I don't think so. How dare you to tell us what he meant? You can see the IPPCs worst prediction scenario maps for what happens if we do not change with 10-18 degrees (which is NOT Fahrenheit) of warming on land masses for the year 2300 in the video. Also, if you looked closer at the comments, you clearly could have witnessed that it's actually the notorious deniers that seem to dislike it - with some of these spammers showing that they didn't even whatch it 🤷

@@thekamotodragon Also, from a personal view, I would say that there is much more fear with the deniers than with the ones that are warning about climate change. The number of comments stating that AGW was made up on purpose to get everybody into some worldwide communism with total control and no private posession of goods and some of them even wildly fantasizing about breathing beeing rationed is no longer countable.

Misinforming people makes it harder to find solutions. Need to know the truth. Just give facts, not an agenda.

Lefties breed in uncertainties such as climate studies

Unfortunately it's more profitable for specific organisations or certain politicians to mislead humanity for their own personal gain. For example pharmaceutical corporations or in this instance the climate change industrial complex. Unless there is a way to consistently keep out bad actors from positions of power/leadership roles or at the very least hold them accountable for their actions, this is just going to keep on happening.

It makes me mad knowing how many gullible sheep there are who just follow along with academia, despite the overwhelming evidence that academia has been captured by the controlling bodies like the IPCC. When a "scientists" future depends on him following their script, then of course "9 out of 10 scientists agree".

​@douganderson7002 I'm not sure which specific controversy the Harvard one is, but are the grievance papers the Peter Boghossian thing? If so, it's a bit odd to conflate the excesses and, frankly, madnesses which can occur in the social sciences with the findings of the natural sciences. On top of that, why should it just be climate science which is the subject of mistrust because of malpractice or fraud in unrelated areas of science? Why not be on the fence about the germ theory of disease, or the laws of gravity, or of the existence of almost anything discovered or explained by science? I understand mistrust, because people do terrible things all the time, but I don't understand it if it's applied arbitrarily. If there are instances of fraud which undercut climate science then OK, there's a point there, but if its just that 'people are dishonest in other fields so why trust this one' then it doesn't make sense.

Baa a check then it was global cooling.

You thought to do nothing about it since then?

From a profit perspective, it's intelligent to make it political. You immediately secure 50% of people believing you. From there you can sell tons of stuff. Like Tesla cars, which have been amazing for my net worth.

​@@Cardioid2035do what? Somehow alert the world to this grift when everyone is so hyper political polarized? No thanks, I'll just profit. Just like Nancy Pelosi. Bought the green energy stocks, and quadruped my money.

Because it’s nonsense. When you have UK scientist’s caught faking sea level numbers and constantly spraying the atmosphere to keep the planet’s temperature warmer. You get warmer temps and worse storms.

And Covid came from nature.

​@@kinjunranger140Yes, it came. Virus are a part of nature and coronaviruses existed way before COVID-19: in fact they existed way before the first humans on this planet appeared.

The problem is that the science of climate has been infected with the grifters and hustlers politicized version of climate science. Most of the really revolutionary science throughout human history has been brought by the "heretics"...not the politically connected, big money, establishment scientists.

The laws of physics have actually come under scrutiny thanks to the James Webb Telescope!

​@@qman1434yo that's actually quite a neat factoid. But it also makes sense, science really is just grasping at straws and seeing which one does anything, pretty neat

The urban heat island effect is know for around 200 years and is considered in the measurements. Data from outside cities shows the same warming.

No he speaks out of his backside

We need more people with common sense. This video is filled with the same unverifiable "data" that is used by many others. If you can't understand why this data is questionable I don't think you should be commenting. There is no way whatsoever to know what they exact temperature or CO2 levels were in the entire atmosphere 1M years ago. Impossible.

​@@russagrusa7024And still people calculated the current warming 40 years ago. It is just physics.

1913 highest temperature ever recorded in the world Some guy said thats only weather Uk highest temperature 40deg last year scientist said thats climate change man made SEE how scientist pick what suits Amazing

@@rodmartin-nl8ns Because they know the difference between a desert and London.

And right now, all of the money is in the climate change narrative.