Time to Get Real about Climate Change 

Exactly. Profit motive above all - modern existence in a nushell.

That's conspiracy theory level BS!

@@ruschein Not when you look at Exxon and Co., muzzling the reports, after their scientists looked into it in the 70's, and the board of directors started the deny, deny, deny, line. Profits above all else.

@@alexxx4434 That's exactly the reason why Europe puts a price on carbon emissions.

Lets fund some grants to study the ammont of bs research and planning.

It's finally completed://ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v3NtXtU5Yj0.html

Or ... she knows she is in trouble.

But what next? n-word?

​@@noelward8047since this is the real world it is probably both. And both certainly merits the f-word. And in the real world being in trouble usually means you're telling the truth. The only way to maybe, just maybe, stay out of trouble is to join the rest of the world and spout bullshit. You go girl!

@@noelward8047 Yes, we're all in trouble!

@alexwyler4570, I agree with you. Saying there is a climate change crisis is like saying there is a gravity crisis. Like gravity, climate change isn’t a “crisis”, it’s just reality. Climate changes. Always has. Always will. And there is nothing we can do about it. What we can do is reduce pollution, and do it in a manner that is financially sound and leads to overall improvement in quality of life,

@@martinhughes2637its a true shame narratives like these are so non-existent in popular opinions. I am so grateful for my highschool teacher of biology that exposed us early to the nuance of climate change and the delusion we as humans have about how in “control” we think we are. To my understanding, it makes no sense to sacrifice so much at the cost of normality of day by day life, these people have an undoubted conviction in that humanity is destroying the planet, so everybody must suffer to save it, literal virtue signaling scum that never took a day in their life to study what climate change entails but love to advocate for the “good thing”, easy, naive and sheep behavior, then you got those ones that oppose everything climate related, also completely irrational in their conviction to not give a shit, they hold this conviction just to oppose the others. But the rational minds are left in the middle between two loud crazies, people who see the long term benefit of renewable energy production but aren’t obsessed with this zero-emission goal just because it sounds good. It reminds me on how germany’s government was gaslit into closing their nuclear reactor’s by the stupid masses because it was supposedly dangerous, only to realize that people started to advocate for it years later as a clean and cheap energy source. When you got governments and by extension mega corporations buy into this virtue crap, you get exactly what Sabrine describes, a load of wishful thinking and profit opportunities.

​@@martinhughes2637Well said, great to see some people still actually apply a bit of thought to this rather than parroting "the message".

@@martinhughes2637 But ... there is a lot we can do about it. We know that, because we are already doing a lot about it, and in the wrong direction.

You are right unless the sun does something unthinkably stupid like exploding. That will never happen right?

How do you even find out what reality is? Sure, in order to find out objective reality, you just have to look at the evidence. But the thing is that in order to even look at the evidence, you need a lot of technical education to parse through jargon and actually understand what they mean. And also, different methods of gathering evidence have different kinds of limitations and some means of gathering evidence are good for one purpose but bad for the other. Every single means of evidence gathering has like 12 caveats that have to properly understood to evaluate it properly. Then the thing is that you can't just jump to conclusions from one study alone, you have to take the whole of the available evidence into account and by that point it just becomes too tedious. I was also in this kind of situation when I use to follow nutrition youtube (which is a complete shitshow). After some time, I decided to simply read studies by myself and then my head started spinnning from all the jargon in there. So I just gave up. And this is significantly greater effort than what most people accusing others of "frighteningly thinking that their beliefs are facts, therefore living in their own obscure reality" will ever expend. (I am not accusing you of anything, just that your sentence was too good to not use for myself). Fact of the matter is that most people have no idea what they are talking about, they just pretend to be knowledgeable and accuse others of being propagandized and manipulated when they themselves are just as much propagandized and manipulated as anyone else. Most people just get their information from unkowledgeable influencers which themselves have no understanding about the topic they are spreading (mis)information on. Then the people who follow those influences go around, spreading their gospel and call people who do not agree with them as sheeple who are turning away from the facts because of being victimes of propaganda or idiocy or whatever, when these allegations would equally apply to them as well. Sorry for the long rant, but I have simply given up. I do not believe in anything that anyone says anymore. I think the best course forward is for us to simply not burden our brains more than necessary by indulging in political debates online and taking sides which is going to become inevitable if we continue to consume content like this. Just live our life in peace and let it be.

@@nitishkumarjurel241 I mostly agree with you. The OP is also correct though. I think it's a result of the dominant epistemology in education, producing people who think knowledge is something to be passed from expert into their head, or in "consuming content", instead of something their own critical faculties constructs in collaboration with the external world. However, there are some topics where objectivity ought to take the politics out of the discussion, such as the topic of this video. There's no need to be skeptical of instruments that give us a good enough accuracy of such measures as temperatures or ice sheet extent and so on. There is no need for debate on whether or not it's 40°C outdoors, and thus no discussion to be had over whether or not our measurements are showing quite troublesome patterns. These are simplifications of course, but we have a pretty good knowledge of what's going on, and how the system of systems works. Of course, the next question is "so what?" - and that's where it gets difficult, but when the objective part in the first place itself is the subject of debate, and many people think like the OP described, that's where we really have a problem. As a species, we don't really have a choice in simply switching off and letting it be, not while some of us would prefer to play the game and solve the puzzle.

Why do you think that certain organisations have been found to be manipulating climate data to make it look worse?

​@@nitishkumarjurel241I agree with you about almost everything you said. It IS basically impossible for the average person to get to the truth with full certainty. But I don't think the solution is to just give up and not try at all. This feels too defeatist to me. I think we need to simply acknowledge our own limitations, be very picky about our sources (I don't think necessarily going to original studies is usually necessary but we should definitely make sure we are taking information from experts in the field and not just laymen influencers) and we need to diversify our sources (because chances are, that when multiple experts agree on something the evidence is probably pretty solid). How much "success you can have with this approach can vary depending on the field. In my opinion nutrition especially is one of those fields where it seems like we still MOSTLY have no freaking clue what's going on, because the interactions in our body are so complex and varied. So then, if you listen to general concesus, mostly you will get very generic advice, such as "eat a varied diet", "limit red meats", etc etc. It can be super frustrating, especially if you have very specific problems or questions that you want answers (I've certainly been there). But sometimes that's the best we got... :/

Your comment is the most ignorant stupid thing I've heard in a week congratulations

The basic principle of social media is that you'll generally end up communicating at the lowest common denominator, i.e. discourse will be dumbed down to the dumbest person in the room. That makes it very, very easy for any monied interest to pollute and disrupt any constructive discourse about this sort of topic - just pay a few people to be dumb, and loudly.

"Speaking to social media really has become like speaking to a bunch of five-year-olds." How much practice do you have speaking to a bunch of five year olds?

I'm proud to say that I don't have any social media accounts; no Farcebook, no Instagag, no Pint..., no X, none. Thinking for myself is so much more satisfying.

​​@@thomasmaughan4798you are correct! Five year olds come out way more intelligent, as compared to people with agendas. Sabine, please stay the way you are, we love you this way, agendaless.

Five year olds are smarter

I really dont give a SHIT either way when all humanity is dead and gone the world will still be ticking away. Besides the way I see it it is still better then going into an ice age that was predicted in the 70s.

Bingo!!!!!!

The thing that got us into this mess can be the solution too. International agreements are needed to create the right incentives for capitalism to solve it Ie. a price on carbon. My belief that this is the only way we are going to solve environmental issues, by working "with" the machine rather than going against it, or becoming jaded and checking out.

Cashing in on the scam

@@frankknight7968AGW is not a scam. It’s a fact. Whether you decide to mitigate it via capitalism or via any other route, it is either mitigated or it increasingly squashes us down the road. There is no way back, only A. mitigation or B. worsening.

'Financialising' the problem is why free-market Capitalism is so inept at solving the problem which it created in the first place. A solution needs economies with central planning and control, which is why China is actually doing quite well at reducing it's CO2. They claim to have more solar PV than USA and Europe combined. Their progress is spurred on by the desire to have zero dependence on oil, which is largely imported.

@@davidinkster1296 Nonsense. China's CO2 emissions are still increasing and central planning is an environmental disaster.

@@davidinkster1296 It helps that China sits on the raw materials needed for batteries and PV panels.

​@@davidinkster1296Don't be fooled by the good looking figures about renewables or nuclear energy in China. They are planning to build or are already building hundreds of gigawatts of coal power plants... We need to look at the big picture and not only focus on what we're interested in.

@@groovy_bear That anti-china story hasn't changed since 1992, but what has changed is increases in nuclear and hydro-electricity, and a huge increase in solar. (the latter verifiable by satellite data, not propaganda). They are now starting the phase-out of some of the thermal coal plants built in the 90's, as they reach the economic end-of-life. I repeat that China strongly wants to be self-sufficient in energy, like USA and Russia, and will be phasing out coal ASAP. Australia, where I am, is well aware of China's coal usage, because we export the stuff, and I wish we didn't.

Just listen to science. Ignore politics.

Did you see her other video about the nonsense of "thermal runaway" due to CO2.

That is like saying that Trump never incited the January 5th crowd. Technically true if you parse the words out of context. Sabina is assuming that our current economic system can't be changed. Under that assumption she is right, but assuming that ordinary people, the 99%, won't accept limits to unnecessary travel and food consumption in order to save a human friendly climate is plainly wrong. We undertook humongous changes in a very short time because of a pandemic, which was way less serious. Worst case then was 5% of the population gone. The climate crisis has the potential for 20-90% in a century or two.

@@madshorn5826 Your dates are about as wrong as your hysteria. It was Jan 6th, not 5th. And Trump called for the National Guard, but Nancy Pelosi didn't allow the Guard to be brought in. Facts proven by actual documents that are official US Government record.

@@madshorn5826 I think you're mistaken. The changes undertaken during the pandemic resulted in huge gains of wealth for the top 0.001%. That's why they were done. It wasn't done for your safety, although at a surface level that's the reasoning they said. None of the research supports lockdowns for viral pandemics, but it just so happens they could make a huge amount of money using lockdowns by shutting down small businesses, eliminating competition and using it as a reason to print ungodly amounts of cash out of thin air which then gets immediately spent at one of the few monopolistic enterprises you're allowed to shop at. Funny that. The BS plans result in lots of wealth for them too. Taking a nuanced, highly technical approach and working hard to come up with the best solution is not what the government does. The government simply gets paid off by the 0.001% to funnel money to their assets and interests to make them as rich as possible.

@@madshorn5826 She isn't saying that they cant, just that they probably won't be changed. I personally expect climate change to do immense damage on a global scale but I don't really expect people to do anything about it.

I mean, we pretty effectively moved off of CFC’s as a United planet to stave off the collapse of the ozone layer.

@@markwazny6361we did but it’s still there, which might be telling us something

@@markwazny6361 Not really on the same scale is it? And there were viable and scalable alternatives that didn't cost trillions of taxpayer money to switch to...

@@markwazny6361 Oh dear. What were CFC's replaced by ?

People's lives are hard enough. Its hard to expect people to care about the Earth's future and give up things that make people's lives easier. I'm not paying for less efficient green energy, rolling power grid blackouts, or sacrificing anything that makes living on this Earth easier. We haven't solved homelessness, poverty, and so many other basic things, and yet they want everyone to focus on this nebulous grand concept of saving the Earth? Give me a break!

@jakedewyn8848 Well, all those people who are pushing the idea of climate change being a crisis, certainly DO have an agenda. Usually a money-making one.

There's so much money behind climate change, it's hard to tell who's in it for profit and who's actually offering real scientific data. Is Al Gore interested in climate change for the millions he earns or for the good of humanity? Cheers

They have. it is just a different one

A clever person usually has an agenda. In terms of the "climate change" the green vision seem to be that of a poor feudalistic society. As most of the leaders of this religion does not live acc. to this religion most believers think there are others who lives for them in stone age.

Yes, actually the report is quite funny in places because of the polite understatement like that it would require progress like never seen before. They actually have announced a new report will be coming out in 2 weeks: www.stateofcdr.org/

@@SabineHossenfelder CDR is absolutely necessary. CDR is too weak, by orders of magnitude, to mend the harms of fossil emissions. If all of the energy and money in the world went 100% into CDR, only about 6% of current emissions would be removed. Still, we cannot get from a highly unstable and dangerous 420+ ppmv CO2 plus CH4 and so on from fossil fumes to a livable 350 ppmv in a timeframe of less than hundreds or thousands of years without CDR at least ten times greater than is now planned. The obvious conclusion is that fossil trade must end as rapidly as possible. Project Drawdown tells us this will create wealth and reduce prices to consumers in 80% of transitions. Just 10% of that savings would be enough CDR, mostly by biochar from harvesting newly afforested trees, would suffice. Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month, down to zero by 2030, to motivate transition. That's the only measure that will lead policymakers and governments to take action seriously and dispense with the bull$h!t delaying tactics.

It's finally completed: https//ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v3NtXtU5Yj0.html

Yeah, when that graph appeared I was like "really? We're that far alo-oohhhh, that's a logarithmic scale. Yep, we're basically fucked."

​@@Loonistrator I hope that you aren't an "American." It's because you may have committed a prosecutable crime of using the world-renowned f-word. 😂

I worry when I see "they" twice or more in one sentence. It used to mean a plurality of people; now it can mean just one.

The people that truly understand the problem know it is too late to prevent it, so how can they take proposed solutions seriously. They also know anything we can actually get done will help us adapt to the coming reality, so they play along.

Climate catastrophism is a hoax, the climate is beyond our control.

cos its a lie cold always wins out

​@@user-vf2mi7sz5fwhat?

I love honesty

It's not a lack of understanding, it's telling people what they don't want to hear.

In that regard i dont think US and EU compares very well. I think it's far simpler: No one - state, government or private wants to look at the simplest, easiest way to curb emmisions: dial back consumerism to 1990 levels. The entire western economy is being held up by our consumption of goods. If the thing causing the problem is also the thing keeping you “alive”...? Well here we are.

Good thing Florida will be underwater in 20 years

@@atmatey Florida is already underwater... based on predictions made in the 80's.

Man does not run earth much less the climate ,so there is nothing to get done.

I think our democracy needs an update. To run for office, you have to meet certain qualifications.

Na it's just don't exist any simple solutions you can make money from

I agree with you about engineers, but I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Politicians went to law school.

@@TheTaysoren When you are a lawyer and realize you just cannot steal enough to pay for your life style in the job you are in.

The costs increased because of the Ukraine war. We are in an ice age. The industrial revolution started in the 18th century. The physics of CO2 are known for over 150 years. CO2 reflects thermic radiation back to earth.

I agree that the science is not settled, we have a lot more to learn about what drives our climate and significantly reducing the availiblity of cheap energy from Coal, oil and gas is making an economic hardship for many without proof that this is necessary.. The earth is in a paused Ice age presently and has been a lot warmer in the past that allowed human civilization to flourish. Consider agenda 21 as a reason for this delusion of human activity causing a climate crisis alarm..

How's the fishing? Do you ever fish the ocean from shore or fish the bays?

I fish the rivers for trout. Between my car breaking down and illness I haven't gotten out yet but the car will be fixed next week and I'm fit again. I'm hoping they are in the mood to eat my fly. Here's hoping. Do you fish much?​@@stilnaughttelling6587

Im sorry for your situation but if you really want to understand how it works I would suggest you research the science yourself, theres many videos or books availible explaining the greenhouse effect. Small things do add up in the end as you might know.

Neither is necessary or planned.

Except that we live in a historical period in which they talk and walk happy together. Ask Elon.

What is your keyboard made of ?

But who's the emperor?

It's finally completed: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v3NtXtU5Yj0.html

​@@timothyrussell4445 The scientists paid to present alarming data... but Sabrina here wants to blame the politicians (she sugests that they don't understand what they themselves placed orders for and paid a lot of money for all the scary predictions that we are getting). But what I like most is the assumption that technologically will remain as backward as it is now and no new clean technologies will be created... I would like to remind you that the best scientists of the 19th century predicted that due to the increase in population and the affluence of city inhabitants in the 20th century->cities were doomed as they could only drown in horse dung because of the increased amount of people that could own one and use for communication...

@@noelward8047 : If you don't burn your keyboard it won't add to global warming.

Yes and that is why we need free speech, despite the vicious attacks one might receive. Because the other alternative is censorship and it can be way worse.

Very well stated. Especially certain agendas. Keeping people ignorant,stressed out and frightened has a reason. And consequences.

They even work very hard to keep people uniformed.

Only theoretically by far the most dangerous because unfortunately most of the population neither has the knowledge nor the inclination to understand the reality behind climate change or any of the other potentially devastating issues facing our global technological civilasation. And as long as policy is in the hands of democratically elected and/or technically ill-informed governing elites the situation won't change until it's far too late to make a difference.

Climate change deniers are the only ones with agendas.

Sabine calls them “plans” but they are not really that. More like illustrations of what would have to happen. Nobody thinks these things actually will happen. do they ? That would be delusional.

Yes they’re to busy counting their money

Unfortunately yes! One smart girl in her basement won´t save us, though she does what she can.

We all know why BS: not problem soving, but profit seeking incentive.

@@alexxx4434 it’s end game ladies and gentlemen all people that was deceived will know the truth b4 truth set u free

The thing is that books, papers, and movies have been written on answering her question, her rhetorical question is not rhetorical, it is thoroughly answered if she was a little more aware of how global power came to be.

We can all be Sabines in our own way if we inform ourselves of the realistic outcomes!

I think the reason we have high goals is because they would be possible if governments were run for the good of the people. The problem is they're run to make rich people richer.

@@coolbanana165 The point of this video was that these goals are impossible.... wildly impossible... Are you a politician or a political activist by any chance ? :-)

@@thorick590 I think the point was more that the goals would only be possible if the powers of the world "take it seriously" The transformation to make these goals possible would require most of the world transitioning to a war time demand economy targeted at this particular problem. And that is not going to happen.

The same ppl who say 'no lavoro, no manga'

@@DJWESG1 I don't understand ? Did you mean 'no mangiare', instead ?

All lies and bullshit. its the coldest ive ever been as from january this year.

Which countries?

If only countries could live in peace. But they can't, and so military spending occurs. Not having a military would be like not having a police force..

Have you ever considered what happens if you dont spend that money on war and foreign aid? You get invaded. America specifically. Geo-Politics are EXTREMELY complicated, and while it may look like America just leaves its citizens to die so they can meddle around the worlds affairs... Have you ever noticed its STILL the most powerful country in the world. Surrounded by people who would literally invade you if they could. Have you ever noticed that as soon as a country gets in shit they ask America for help? Think about why. Its a really damning realization. Once it eclipses in your mind your entire world view will change. A constant war between money and power, is the only thing thats kept your country afloat. Seriously think about it. Its NOT as simple as just "not spending money on war"..

To have an army is different to have war. And to use an army to control the world economy, and to invade other countries to get their oil, is even more problematic.

@@AngeloMondaini oil is controlled by the countries whose oil is in their land. Your claim about invading for oil is simply incorrect.

And weather is solved

and they all seem to buy expensive , ocean front estates while crying about rising sea levels , 8!tch please !!!!!!!!!!!

What? Why would "logical, materialistic, honest people with a scientific approach" (whatever that means) step down? That is simply not true. The issue is that normal people aren't power hungry and sociopathic enough to endure the fight to the top.

@@carlpanzram7081 Your argument has no internal logic. First you say "No, honest, logical and unbiased people wouldn't step down from positions of great power." then you give some of reasons why they would. If honest, logical and unbiased people would be in charge, the power and money hungry would constantly battle them with intrigue to have them removed.

@@carlpanzram7081 You literally explained part of why they step down. THINK before you speak.

because politicians tell people what they want to hear. A scientist will tell you cold, hard facts. Who do you think the majority would give their vote to?

Do you remember 'Trust the science' ?

@@noelward8047 : The science is fine and improving. It's corporate politics obstructing progress. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want to give up it's $4 trillion a year cash cow.

"When you present data to people with an agenda" English fails again! Is that: 1. you [present data to people] with an agenda OR 2. you present data to [people with an agenda]. In form 1, the presenter has the agenda, in form 2, the recipients of the data have an agenda.

@@lrvogt1257 "The science is fine and improving" If it is fine, it needs no improving. If it is improving, it is not fine.

@@thomasmaughan4798 : Science is not an object it is a process and improving with new data is part of it.

No worries. You're all gonna face the consequences of your actions in the afterlife.

The people in Congress who heard Sagan, are now just as dead as Sagan. There is no continuity. Except for the fossil fuels industry, which is immortal and eternal. They heard Sagan, too, and they knew he was right. They have never slept, not once. They will never sleep. They will keep us burning fossil fuels until the bitter end.

@@lucifercaeleste That's different for everybody. You add up all your mortal sins and multiply that number by 50. Then you add up all your venial sins and multiply that by 25. You add that together and that's your sentence. I figure I'm gonna have to do 6,000 years before I get accepted into heaven and 6,000 years is nothin' in eternity terms. I can do that standing on my head. It's like a couple of days here.

@@stanstrum nope. See you on the other side.

​@@lucifercaeleste No such thing as the afterlife. They get away scot-free.

PhD ... there it is Haha

​@@noelward8047Im honestly impressed that you somehow managed to reply to most comments

Well yes, but Phil collects toy tanks. Is that an ad hominem?

Historically, humans are still chimps, and act exactly as you would expect them to.

Mankind are also quick to act if they earn a lot of money.

...especially because we won't organise The Vote for the poor & the just in our fascist, fake-democracies.

Reflect, sentient ones; recite the hex of final vows. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (book I)

Well put.

"Facts sometimes hurt" Oh? Bee stings hurt. Dropping a stone on your foot hurts. 2+2=4 is a fact and it does not hurt. Is there a fact that hurts? I cannot think of one. "So I often believe the more melancholy news that’s a bit more doom and gloom" Yes, that is human nature particularly among People of the Left. It is an evolutionary adaptation to respond to fear immediately. "I don’t need to like the fact our world is a shit hole" Also a judgment common among People of the Left who see things darkly and also collectively ("our" world?)

There are no clothes that help for 35C+

@@old-pete You didn't get the joke. I said I was wearing winter clothes in the summer. that makes it hotter than 35C. You have to evolve like navy seals. ;) Plus I know. I worked in energy star stuff, and I learned the hard way that attics are 135 degrees farenheit in august where I'm at. That is hot. I can work maybe 2 hours in that before losing too many brain cells. Especially when your head is right next to the roof. 35C is air conditioning when you get out of that.

France did more to fight climate change in 1970-1990 20 year period by building nuclear power plants to cover almost entire electricity production than any country has done since, and they weren't even trying to fight climate change when they did it.

"lack of adoption of a sound plan with measurement" So what is your plan and how were you planning on measuring?

What climate issues? All of the modeled temperature increases from 20-40 years ago came out dead wrong, the earth's temperature (edit: correction:) did go up but way not as high as all of those models. (end edit) So now, they changed the way temperature is measured, they now measure it much closer to the surface and duh - it's hotter there. That's the one "climate issue" I see - a change in measurement technique.

@@thorman1742 I suggest you stick to measuring THC content.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Todd isn't making the point you seem to think he's making.

*yawn* - people here will (hopefully) ignore trolling deniers of the proven scientific theory of carbon-induced global warming

You forgot the part where they made their entire economy dependent on hydrocarbons piped in from their oldest geopolitical enemy. Truly the biggest own goal in human history.

Considering even one of our former chancellors lobbies for the russian gas company Gazprom, it's safe to say a lot of money is changing hands to make sure nuclear power will not be the future for Germany. I'm sure the same can be said for lignite (of which we are the worlds biggest producer apparently)

they’ll probably blame the jews

At great expense to its pastoral scenery, as is the case everywhere wind monsters prowl.

@@athmaid How did they sway public opinion in Germany about nuclear power? But more importantly: how can we sway it back?

There is no optimal temperature.

Yes sure the governments are the problems yeah.

What we get from government depends on how tied to the fossil fuel industry the party in power is. US Republicans are an arm of the fossil fuel industry.

another "we" user

"which is we're totally fucked." Alas, it has been a long time for me.

Well, you are. I'm fine over here. This stuff lives rent free in your head. Not mine.

@@Mechulus Considering you bothered to reply to a comment regarding a climate change video, it lives rent free in your head too. 🤣

@@familiartoad5366 A million years ago CO2 was two times higher than now, but fragile life forms survived without a hitch. Fear and ignorance is eternally living in your head.

@@glennwoodruff2398 ohh you cannot talk about that they're followers of a failed scientists turned fear mongering RU-vidr I know all lady.

Dr. James Hansen thinks we're headed beyond 3.4 to 4.8, and after that straight to 10. He is the world's leading authority on global climate. Nobody cares.

Who's we? Some folk already think we will all die soon, so when it's worse some folk think, we will die sooner.

Well the climate doomsday cult have been saying we only have 10 years left until climate doomsday kills us all EVERY year now for +50 years, and they have been totally wrong with every climate prediction they have ever made...

What new study? I mean study about current trends based on data analysis. Seas aren't rising at an accelerated rate. Temperature has warmed a little (thankfully, in some places). Crop yields have been steadily rising. The coral on great barrier reef was at its highest level in 40 years. Ice extent is largest in 20 years in the arctic. More and more people in developing countries are rising out of poverty. No increasing trends in hurricanes, extreme weather events, apart from some increased intensity in rainfall. Remember all the predictions of doom from Al Gore? Never happened.

@@marksouthern7542 Enjoy the trolling.

I agree, though I think it´s ok, that she posted a clarification for simpletons

Have you considered your 'carbon footprint' ?

@@noelward8047 Is that personal footprint even close to the mean carbon use? I strongly suspect most carbon emission is not personal.

@@noelward8047 Of course. Who wouldn't if they were aware of the climate crisis caused by humans?

@@abj136unless you are taylor swift

Certainly not the first.

No, we will not.

Save itself from what? Nothing about climate change makes the world less habitable. Only doomsday conspiracy theories claim that.

Moot point. If climate change is gonna kill us all, then no one we be here to ascertain this statement was true.

Why do you think the cosmos is eerily empty - evolution produces 1-trick-pony liars & cheats who accelerate disastrous climate change by propagating extra-filthy "Green" technology which entails the combustion of MORE fossil fuels, not less 😱

Planetary temperatures vary ? Who knew ! Someone should turn off that big light in the sky.

@@noelward8047 Nobody denies that temperatures vary....

Utter tosh. We’re busy removing farming which is going to cause a much bugger problem for people. We need more CO2 more vegetation and most importantly, less politicians.

@@ianclarke8821 Truer words I've never heard!

@@ianclarke8821 No, plants are adapted to this level of Co2 - adding more won't' help. No serious scientists make such claims. Only armchair conservatives who believe "what makes common sense" based on their "life experience". Aka anecdotal evidence and biases.

You thought wrong.

Yeah, were not getting the best and the brightest.

The woman who said that the moon is made of gas... worked at high level position at NASA.

Yeah, I remember one congressman brought in a chunk of snow thinking that disproves climate change. These people are clueless.

And yet they'll call you a 'science denier' if you disagree with them.

Diversity hires

If you look at biology, humans are the only species that can shift to a new food source if the previous staple is no longer available. It doesn’t seem like we’re able to do the same trick in economics.

Didn't the now defunct Soviet Union (Russia et al for you youngins) have a continuous series of "Five Year Plans" over its 70-year history?

Not enough uranium. That would not have worked anyway.

Honestly we have time to let technology grow, even enough time for cold fusion. And that’s assuming this is a problem at all and not just creeping nature.

@@WhoeverNevermind Old Saw: Perfection is the enemy of good. A perfect solution too late is still a failure. In 1975 we needed a solution that would replace the bulk if not all of fossil fuel use for the grid and have it *completed* in 10 -20 years, or we would have climate change. Wasn't done so we got Climate Change. Key point: completed. We needed to be DONE by 2000 latest. Of course all of these new plants would become old plants someday and need to be replaced. If we found the perfect solution tomorrow it would still be too late. You also leave out that fission would run on a lot of radioactive materials, no just uranium.

Yep. And as a Jew, I find "Climate Denier" a vile appropriated term related to Holocaust denial. Sadly, I'm sure that the manipulative term "Climate Denier" was coined in part by wordsmithing Leftist Jews.

That, and "Don't fuck around."

its even worse when politics are treated as a religion. Then things get really tricky

Science is the opposite of religion. What is accepted as fact changes with new information. In religion, what is accepted as fact was written in the bronze age.

Ha see that happening most every day in comments. Not only do people read between the lines they read from the wrong book. Many just want to feel good making others look bad. Did I mention YT comments suck.

I'm not at all sure that'd be a good idea, before you know they'll be teaching differential equations in kindergarten ;)

@@SabineHossenfelder I´m wondering if her daughters needed to do that😅

We need to learn how to make our own decisions, not have somebody else make them for us… Nobody makes decisions for me climate change this whole entire climate change here in Canada is a hoax driven by political gain in my opinion… Which I might add does not mean a whole lot

@@SabineHossenfelder We need diff equations in kindergartens and parliaments. pls. pls,

Wow, even in ST: TNG the kids were older then kindergarten before they had to learn Calculus let alone ODEs... but I like the sentiment. You'll get my vote Sabine ❤ .

The market did nothing.

Humanity could plant trees for 200 years, it would not stop the warming. And there are companies that make a living planting trees....

yeah, I was disappointed as well

I like Sabine but man is it jarring every time these hard topics are discussed only to be slammed with a random commercial with fake enthusiasm afterwards. Really sums up the times we live innit.

It's not that simple. A lot of the scientists are telling people BS, too.

The problem with your framing is the word 'ask'; climate activism and policy - and I am speaking of activism at the federal and international level - doesn't advocate for asking people to do anything. Instead they involve a combination of incentives, regulations, and economic carrots and sticks that are designed to 'compel' behavior from the people, and those policies and regulations are often drawn up in circles far removed from the public vote. The public feel they are being given a 'lose lose' scenario; ecological calamity on the one hand, or the gradual end of the rule of the people on the other. It's hard to motivate people to choose the 'correct' bad option..

​@@clearlypellucidWhat is "a lot."

Scientists are not telling people to give up. They are saying get your shit together. We should be realistic but climate doomerism lets not bother trying will only make things worst and not what climate scientist advocate for

@@clearlypellucid You fell for the marketing BS,

Exactly.

@@ortacreef8557 I have NEVER bought the undie raG

You emitted a lot of carbon in your waffling. The trees thank you.

Well, keep working at it. We may all be doomed, but if that's the case I think it's better to die trying to do the right thing then just giving up.

yeah, kinda hard to keep to goals when countries just aren't following the accords at all. They're just not doing anything while others are doing everything they can. It just so happens that the countries doing everything are the ones that aren't global producers of green house gasses.

NOT 20 years too late. Had we installed batteries 20 years ago, we would be at ground zero replacing them all again now! Plus 20 year old battery technology sucks. We cannot jump the technology curve just because governments are willing to write checks.

The mining and extractive industries are so clean and green!

yeah, but the problem is profiteering: Those doing nothing still profit from the effort of others. While those spending more still suffer the same as everyone else. That's why I think the EU needs to be way way way harsher in their international trade policy.

The problem is people living today won`t pay. Our children will.

It is actually not obvious, even conceptually, in what sense working on damages in closed society (and we are talking about the whole Earth here) is money related. Imagine an isolated village, nothing outside, which suffered from a fire. It took half a year of collective villagers work to restore the village. In what sense did they pay ? (if there is nothing outside which provided them with goods for purchase) ? They used some time, during which they could have done other things. So in that sense they lost something, basically they lost 1/2 year of development. But were other things they would have gotten valuable ? How to measure it monetary ?

Four "we" in three lines. Herd much?

Your backyard is not the world.

​@@Tiggy808You are free to think that your backyard is the world, but do not be surprised if people do not take you seriously.

​@@Tiggy808Obviously not...

@old-pete you can't just go around the Internet saying the world is not your backyard to everyone. Fact is, I look around and listen to credible scientists, those non-reliant on funding. The 97% 'in agreement', you know how IPCC got to that number right?? I do. Anyway, what's old Pete doing about it even if it is believable?? I live off grid, consume very little, generate my own electricity-presumably living in a cave and riding a bicycle. If, the message was consume less it may have more credibility however the message is keep consuming, and consume our useless technology.

​​@@Tiggy808I can, because that is a fact. But I understand that you have a problem with facts, but that is not my problem. All scientists depend on funding. The message is to be more aware what one consumes and the consequences.

Oh dear ... Oh dear ... Oh dear.

1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. (Please explain the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm period (extra credit for explainging the Little Ice Age)). 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal. 7) Elon Musk: the Laptop Class is in La-La Land.

Oh yeah, when that "log scale" text hit the screen I was like "ah shit". That's also why 3C warmer doesn't sound as worrying as it really is. If you graph it, it's only a minor change. If you show the reality of how sensitive a stochastic system, such as the global climate, is to any tiny change, then 3C starts to look a lot more worrying.

Isn't it perfectly understandable? Both actions take money from other people to line up their own pockets.

The average individual of the developed world does not affect climate change appreciably themselves with what they consume, but all of them together certainly due. Blame isn’t “unjustly shifted”, it is indeed the fault of all of us, while simultaneously none of us. Emergent properties make morality very strange.

Meat is murder.

I love your sarcasm!!!❤️❤️👍

"fighting for our future" or pushing the same fake agenda...

Sabina is being highly partisan though. She is using "realistic" with a hidden assumption: That our destructive economic system is unchangeable. We *_can_* still reach the 1.5° goal *_IF_* we accept that the biosphere has limits and that private jets, private yachts and billionaires are not and have ever been something we can afford. Sabina is basically saying "Sorry, we can't save the world, because the solutions have bad PR". That is not the scientific approach. The scientific approach would be to list the solutions and the consequences, not accepting soft facts like politics as "realistic".

Ohh! I don't find a youtuber intelligent who doesn't talk about solutions instead fear mongers to gain views from Grandpas who don't know anything about current world and your not gonna even survive to see consequences of your consumerism.

​​@@madshorn5826She isn't "accepting" it, like it's something she hopes for. She understands human nature is unlikely to change and has come to terms with it. It's the "acceptance" stage of grief. It's pessimistic thinking, but I fear she's right. This doesn't mean we're all going to die, it just means quality of life will most likely get worse.

Yes, I would request Sabine to do that as well

Good request - I suspect the answer is both! It will depend on where you live and what happens to the local climate - there will be good news in limited supply and bad news in great big chunks.

my guess is that we will have more natural disasters and we will have to deal with more extreme weather. We can deal with both of that (as in we have the technology), but it will be tough. Covid showed that even if science and politics have a plan in the drawer, the population is still reluctant to follow. As long as people don't want to reduce their quality of life, we will first need a (couple) catastrophy that forces people to behave accordingly.

​@@andrewharrison8436Assuming there is significant man-made warming. Which is totally not proven, highly unlikely and in the end it does not really matter except for what to do if significant warming true! Sea level changes have been going on for a long time and there is no acceleration in that. So those predicting disaster where people live near coasts is just talking nonsense out of ignorance or is outright lying. What we do have in many places is that construction pushes the land down, a big city both warms the area (as well as lowers the ground-level). And rivers that get canalized and/or dammed also change the supply of fresh water drastically. No curtailing of carbon emissions is ever going to have any impact on either of these factual mechanics at play! Every penny spend to fight CO2, instead of addressing real problems is outright criminal due to the loss of life and property that results from it. We thus must do as we always did and use money to adapt. In most cases where problems do slowly show up that means building dykes and make better plans when dealing with waterway construction. It's all very logical and not hard to understand, it does not even require much knowledge, just that one is not ignorant of basic knowledge. Just take the blindfolds off and do not simply believe that authorities and activists are telling us. They are most of the time entirely wrong and have a horrible track record on top of it. What I present here is way more logical and provable than what the snake oil climate change catastrophe people are telling us. In the end those just want money and power, at the expense of everyone else. They are pure evil.

As far as I know the most devastating effect is that some countries around the equator will increasingly become uninhabitable due to a combination of heat and humidity during more and more days of the year (i.e. it'll no longer be rare that you can't stay outside due to extreme heat wave). Places where lots of people live, like India, sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil. Some scientists expect that the migration waves and wars over resources (like water and arable land) will be so intense that it will destabilize our civilization. Example of such a study: "Probabilistic projections of increased heat stress driven by climate change" by Lucas R. Vargas Zeppetello, Adrian E. Raftery & David S. Battisti Or: "Global risk of deadly heat" by Camilo Mora and others, published in Nature Climate Change in 2017

"They were easier problems" is not just a small difference, it's what made the WORLD of difference between those two positive examples, and climate change.

"yet so infuriatingly stupid as a species, when it comes to long term thinking." Evolution does not depend on long term species thinking. It cares about the next generation and if the next generation has more of my children and fewer of yours, so much the better.

The scientific evidence compellingly shows that Arrhenius was right: _you-know-what-that-starts-with-C_ change and _you-also-know-what-that-also-starts-with-C_ emissions are *_highly beneficial,_* rather than harmful. What is infuriating is that a massive Madison Avenue FUD campaign has managed to convince even intelligent people like you and Dr. Hossenfelder, in the face of all evidence, that good is bad, up is down, and those highly beneficial emissions are a "crisis," or even an "emergency."

"There is no direct evidence to prove that CFCs created the ozone hole in the 1980s. While CFCs were suspected to be a contributing factor, the exact cause of the ozone hole remains unclear." -- ChatGPT: there you go. In fact, the "ozone hole" is seasonal and is continually varying in thickness. Another rush-to-judgement.

​@@glennwoodruff2398 Thanks for proving the OPs point 🙄

How do you propose we recycle the CO2 from a CV? The problem with CVs is the emissions go -everywhere-. With EVs and wind turbine blades, we know where they are. We can move them to a suitable remediation site with a forklift. You can't do that with a kg-CO2 that's floating in the atmosphere.

@@mattpujol4787 but we are already working on means to get rid of CO2. Also, plants get rid of CO2. Atm there's just more CO2 coming in than the current greenery can process. Like the lovely lady said we have to look for feasible solutions. Ev are good for Short distances and city traffic. They are not as realistic for logistics and heavy duty work so far.

@@somesassybrat305 she never said "not feasible at scale", she said "won't work". Those are 2 very different statements and they are crafted to play to a specific audience, IMO. On EVs, according to enerygy.gov, in 2021 52% of trips from home were less than 3 miles from home, 28% were less than 1 mile. Just 2% were over 50 miles. Just because you can't drive to Cleveland once every 3 years doesn't mean an EV won't make a kg-CO2 equivalent impact.

You don’t want to get rid of CO2. There is no need to Matt. So far “renewables” are harming the planet more than any dose of CO2 ever could. And it will continue to get worse.

That's by design! You are correct!!

Scientists are not modern priest that you have no right to criticize. Scientists too have their agendas and are dependent on grants handed over by politicians. If you believe that scientists are better at ethics than any other people you are very naive

Imagine 'Trust The Science' being a phrase !

Other 90000 scientist studied the science and also came to the same conclusion. Judt because someone validates your opinion doesnt mean they or you are right. I am Indian, we were hit by a dust storm 2 days back, hundreds were trapped and many died. The third world is the one that faces the most dangers of climate change even though they have historically contributed the least. Its all one big fucked up situation and how people like you are denying it is straight up beyond me.

No need to imagine... that's my everyday experience on social networks 😞

But is it about science?

Fossil fuel industry.

the many that cannot are India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, South America and Africa.

_Truly_ investing would ignore national boundaries in the same way CO2 does.

Yeah, that's a big part of the problem.

IPCC demanded $2700-a-CO2-Ton Tithe since al-Göres Carbon Cap & Trade Scheme (actual legal name). $2,700-a-CO2-Ton is $35 a gallon at the pump. Wiki has IPCCs address, so next fill up you'll send your $490 tithe to Brussels. _But you won't!_

Well you can't invest when you are broke. Even Europe is broke and the investment you allude to can't happen in a meaningful time frame. The technology to make a difference was available 50 years ago. it was not palatable to green interests but would have achieved what was necessary and would give us the cheap plentiful energy to make the lol green tech. Instead of relying on coal and manufacturing in other countries. It's the end of the ice age so we will just have to live with it.

The warming is on the level calculated around 40 years ago.

Trees eat c02, remove the c, then release 02. Just plant more trees.

Stupidity and bad faith are not mutually exclusive.

@@danharold3087 was about to comment the same. also people in denial or purposely misinterpreting for financial gain

That's the lie. The issue isn't whether the climate is changing, but whether the quality of the proxy record supports claims that human produced CO2 is the "tuning knob" that drives the change at this point in time, and whether such a change is a net negative.

Well, it's a layer cake. There ARE people who legitimately deny climate change exists. There ARE people who legitimately deny that humans have anything to do with it. There ARE people who believe that even though humans are responsible, there is nothing that can be done to solve it. There ARE people who believe that the problems can be solved, but that it is more difficult than is politically likely to actually happen. And then there are people who believe that it's easy to do and we should definitely do it. All we need is to get more people into the camp that is actually working seriously toward these goals, even though they are difficult.

Ever wonder why it's how climate change and not global warming? The former is a harder umbrella term to debunk and therefor more profitable