Why have climate change predictions been so WRONG? 

Also the parameters they consider can really manipulate the data inadvertently.

In that case you’re looking in the wrong place...

You shouldn't be getting your scientific information from the news. The details are everything.

@@tmcche7881 I don't think they're saying that's where they personally get their science but rather that most people, including the people who really should watch this video, won't really consider (and so not care about) confidence intervals.

@@soyoltoi Exactly!

Ya, same here. Its annoying, and is a problem for people...doing their own research...

My biggest problem with medias is how journalists DONT unedrstand science and don't have the academics requirements. I wish they would invite more scientists and people who are actually competent in the field. The medias are just spreading ignorance as they are right now.

@@etienne8110 Would help employment for countless hard science students who are "not good enough" to become professors honestly.

I have seen that pop up from time to time. Though, it could be argued the IPCC report is a collection of observations, studies, etc., and that was pretty heavily emphasized. So...in some ways, both studies and large amounts of evidence are emphasized (keep in mind, that was just one example).

Its also interesting to see one climate graphs china’s industrialization very clearly defined.

In other words, they don't know wtf they're talking about? In that case, why should anyone listen to them?

Persons involved in models design say that, how many important factors are being missed is unknown. Nowadays the central Atlantic is cooling. No model predicted that, nobody knows why or how this is happening. Albeit a lot has been learnt even more is to know. Something as "simple" as the dynamic relationships between the main properties of a.flowing fluid is still hard to be accurately solved.

Well nothing seems to motivate humanity as a whole, i really don't know what people can say to get humanity into action. Most people can see what is going on, but only a very few people actually changed their habits to reduce their footprint on the pollution. Me and my family have been working to lower our CO2 output drastically for the last 10 years, but i don't know anyone who comes close to our efforts. People just don't want to for whatever reason. Now this does not demotivate us from still looking for more options to save the planet, we can at least tell our son that we did try.

@@Fastbikkel True widespread changes in behaviour usually need a big driving force, and no single person can achieve that unless they already are in a position of power. But if one person can convince a few others of something, and those also convince more people, then some change may happen. If you can convince enough people that they can do something to help fix the climate, perhaps things could get better. Maybe. Better than just giving up at least.

I haven't heard DeSantis say Florida will be underwater by 2025, but if it happens, he will be against using scuba equipment and oxygen tanks.

@@pablopereyra7126 It seems pretty damn hopeless to me to expect change to be driven by individual action. I mean, good luck telling people who work 10 hours a day at a job they hate they now can't ever go on a vacation... or eat a steak they enjoy, meanwhile they still have to commute every day 300+ days a year putting carbon into the air doing something they don't actually want to do. Even personal changes that are positive in terms of combating climate change will, on the flip side, have negative economic repercussions. What we need is revolutionary change in how we utilize technology and infrastructure. Unfortunately the profit motive is causing nothing but inertia now. It just won't redirect productive resources towards things that need to happen on it's own. Capitalism has become this ugly inflexible dinosaur. Change will eventually be forced, but when that time comes there will already be a LOT of suffering. Being in the US I just have trouble feeling any hope at all. Nobody even has any imagination anymore. Our whole culture has just stagnated. This shithole is just full of rigid-minded unimaginative myopic people that unfortunately have a lot of political power.

@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 'Capitalism has become this ugly inflexible dinosaur...' Well what do you propose to replace it with? Socialism/Communism? We ran that experiment last century and we have 100,000,000 - 120,000,000 dead to show for it. No thank you buster!

I’d love to see Simon interact with Bjorn Lomborg

@@thetrollpatrol8799 Bjorn is not climate scientist, he just think " it's fine" !

Username checks out.

@@klokoloko2114 The point Bjorn is making in his books is just simply that the global warming is just one of the humanity's problems, but the main one. There are lots of others that needs attention from the governments, such as famine. He on his side is proposing several working methods on how to deal with a consequences of global warming, but yes, he's mostly optimistic about it

@@thetrollpatrol8799 I know you made a joke, but the reality behind it is sorta funny: I live in the Netherlands, and mostly travel by bike. Depending on the weather, I wear a t-shirt, hoodie, or jacket. Due to warming, I can get tricked into thinking a t-shirt is fine. But if it's more windy than I thought, then I get sick. Now, Simon cycles a lot too, and we've all heard of the weather in England, so....

As it should. Because we need more people trying to find solutions. Incentives matter. I'm yet to know of all those millionaire climate scientists that people refer to as getting all this money though. But I know of quite a few paid by the fossil fuel industry who are millionaires.

My family saves a lot of money by reducing our CO2 output. Many more people can do that, but they need the will to do it. This often lacks.

@Vegan Zombie no one contradicts that there is climate change. Now the contradiction is how much humans have contributed due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation. And there is a lot of incentive to contradict that; fossil fuel companies will give you millions.

@@SachinGanpat How is the climate changing?

You don't get it huh

The Y2K threat was actually real. Luckily we realized it in time and could fix the most important systems beforehand.

What in the hell money are you talking about? Are you referring to the BILLIONS of dollars the big oil companies rake in every year? Or the TENS OF MILLIONS that oil company executives take home every year, to fund their super yachts? Or maybe you mean the MILLIONS of dollars that oil companies have paid to PR firms and friendly scientists to spread misinformation? Or the MILLIONS they've spent lobbying Congress? Or are you talking about the veto power that fossil fuel interests have over practically every legislative vote and policy decision around the world (except in China)???

You can bet that Big Oil funding is waaay bigger than climate change funding. Just look at how much trillions big oil make every year.

You would think the oil and gas industry with a market value of $4.6 trillion would have the means to fund the research that could prove everyone wrong. They did fund it, in fact. And it showed the same thing. That’s why they have to rely on articles deliberately misrepresenting data and on making the issue political.

"The biggest issue.........." That is all absolute made up nonsense!

There's long been much more money being pumped into refuting climate change than supporting it.

So, you're claiming decades of climate records are being faked by Big Government? That's a very shiny hat you're wearing. Is it tin-foil, by any chance?

@@btf_flotsam478 Yes, and you've provided no counter-argument other than "lol u stupid". Do get rid of the hypothesis that the government is nice and friendly, we've got tons of events proving they're not always.

Ok, it's all a lie. And the decline of oil and gas production from the North Sea isn't real. Or the government wants to light a fire under industry to start building alternative energy sources before Britons have to start burning furniture to keep warm. And when it's clear that dinky little solar arrays can't heat a dollhouse in December, there'll be no difficulty simply jailing anti-nuclear protestors and getting back to work on the power plants that will run things for the next hundred years. Or did you think they're pouring billions into fusion research because it's a fun science project?

@@RandyTWester You're deflecting quite hard. I'm talking temperatures, climate and wind turbines, you're talking oil and gas. To respond briefly, the government isn't one whole entity. It's comprised of a whole lot of different people, many vying for power while others are trying to do the right thing. Then you've got lobbying, which is thinly veiled modern bribery and corruption in plain view. One such lobby is the wind turbine lobby. They're making craptons of money despite producing precious little energy. But they keep getting enormous funds and more due to their lobbying, pressuring officials to comly to their demands and claiming taxpayer money for themselves. That is what I was saying. As for oil, gas, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, that's an entirely other talk. Not an uninteresting one, on the contrary. Just one I won't have here as it's not the point I was trying to make which was that some people are _selling_ so-called solutions to the climate change lie by using people's fear and good-hearted, trusting nature. Keyword: selling. It's a classic scam. Create a problem, sell solutions that don't work, profit until found out.

@@btf_flotsam478 55% of the hockey stick is pulled from thin air. Data which doesn’t fit the model is discarded. So Yes.

Hanson clearly thought scenario A would be the most likely outcome. This video is wrong to say he thought the three scenarios were equal according to Hanson.

Your criticism is very ignorant. Prediction models in general use different assumption to account for various scenarios, and Hanson managed to get reasonably close with just 3 predictions.

To which doomsday prediction are you referring to? Please give an example with a source.

@@hg6996 U.S. newspapers and television networks. They _all_ predict a climate catastrophe, due to our profligate CO2 emissions. But they only report half the story. For just one example, they never report on the numerous peer reviewed published studies, which conclude that the warming effect of CO2 is negligible to nonexistent. Instead, they report only the most alarming points of view. The result, after a couple decades of alarming stories: a large percentage of the population is so thoroughly indoctrinated that they believe a climate calamity is right around the corner. Based on what's observed, that belief is errant nonsense. The UN's IPCC has been preaching climate alarmism for almost five decades, but there is still no climate threat on the horizon. Every IPCC prediction has been flat *wrong.* None of their alarming prognostications has ever come true, and their latest wild-eyed prediction of a climate doomsday is contradicted by the real world: _Not a single extreme weather record was set in the US in 2022, per NOAA._ There were no record temperatures, no record rainfall or snowfall, no wind extremes, no record hurricanes or tornadoes. Despite the ±50% rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global temperatures continue to be the mildest recorded in the Holocene - which has seen far more benign, mild temperatures than the previous Pleistocene. Global temperatures have not begun to rise past their previous highs, and there is no indication that they will. Draw your own conclusions. [typo fixed]

@@hg6996 Sorry, Ive been very busy at work lately. Here are a few 1: 1989 Noel Brown informs the UN that we have only a 10 year period to reverse global warming or by the year 2000 we will see massive famine, drought and eco refugees. 2: In AIT Gore predicts that hurricaines will become more frequent and more severe, yet we've actually seen a drop in frequency over the past 15 years 3: In 2009 Gore claimed there was a 75% chance that the artic will be ice-free during the summer time but in 2015 we saw the biggest refreeze on record. 4 AIT predicted that polar bears would soon go extict, Yet today in 2024 there are more of them than there were in 06. 5: In 1989 Dr David Rind predicted largescale global droughts by 2020 which would lead to famine and widespread death, and yet we're producing more food thatn ever. 6: In 2011 Dr Paul R Epstien predicted more severe and frequent tornadoes for the american midwest, yet we've actually seen a slight decrease in both. I can go on all night without mentionint all the vague "we have x number of years to save the world " scenarios that Ive heard since childhood. I remember arguing with my dad that New Orleans would be under water by 2020. I could also mention that Al Gore invests alot of money in ocean-front property for someone who's convinced the sea levels are rising at a dangerous rate. (I'd also like to add I was full on the climate change bandwagon, in full crisis mode until I saw that the only thing happening was a slight increase in temperature, Global warming is very real but not much of a threat, and one that can be handled by increased human adaptation through technology and geo-engineering....besides more people die of the cold every year than of the heat) Here are some links: www.westernjournal.com/10-failed-global-warming-predictions/ www.westernjournal.com/10-years-ago-climate-scientists-said-wed-move-to-antarctica-its-95f-right-now/ www.cato.org/commentary/global-warming-apocalypses-didnt-happen www.sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/ www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears

@@romanpen Al Gore isn't a scientist. A lot of the predictions have come true as we are already seeing widespread drought and never seen extreme wildfires. I don't know in which bubble you live but the effects of climate change have arrived in basically all places in the world. Sea level is rising faster than predicted and so is the shrinking of arctic sea ice. Again, I refer to predictions of the IPCC, not of Al Gore or some dude who once said something. Get the facts straight. The effects of Climate change are here.

The warnings are appropriate. The WMO reports extreme weather events due to climate change have increased to 500% what they were 50 years ago. Ice is melting at an accelerating rate decade by decade and look up Blue Ocean Event to learn what can happen when the Arctic has a mostly ice free summer. It ain't good.

I'm torn on this. When we look at how much bad publishing gets done, and how long it takes to find and retract, is discouraging, especially as it's getting worse. We've been led to believe there's 'good' science, and there's Goop and all the obvious sciency guys spouting crap, and not much in between. Science is done by humans, and will suffer all the corruption and frailties humans are prone to. I can't point out The Slippery Slope Fallacy is itself a fallacy, as almost everything starts from small causes and grows, without getting into an argument from 'scientists' about how I don't understand science. If I point out how the way they argue goes against human nature, and is not the best way to convince someone, boy, do they get defensive. Try it sometime. In short, way too many 'scientists' are reluctant to point out the weaknesses of science, how flawed it can be before it's corrected, how bad decisions can look in hindsight when more is known, etc. They're as prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect as anyone, but only see it as something others suffer. And, I'm totally distraught over the notion technology can fix our problems, when what we need is less people, less consumption, less energy use, and more trees. But, who's going to listen to someone who says, "Stop buying stuff, get off the computer, and go plant some trees." It's best for mankind, but not for scientists.

@@inthso362 Would you be kind enough to give some statistics on "bad publishing" ( that was not retracted within few months) by reputable journal having high citations?

@@inthso362 Science is about experimentation, modelling and observations. It is something that relies on information which constantly evolve. Science is not static. Most of the scientific facts are based on consensus among many different scientists, having performed different experiments and repeating them several time. Nothing is perfect and nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, that doesn't mean all information is equal, as some things have better and stronger evidence than others.

@@lostboy3080 I absolutely agree. And if we were taught that way, or picked it up through years of trial and error, as I did, it would be different. But, consider how many say, "Follow the science!" on FB, for example, and think saying that makes them critical thinkers when all their info is still just coming from FB, and, as Fauci is being demonized by the other side, that means he must be faultless, and canonized by this side, and, you know, it just goes on... The fact is, there is such a thing as info overload, and we all take mental shortcuts, 'cause we don't have a choice, and trying to communicate that to others- my humaness is the very same as yours, you're not without biases- becomes a battleground.

@@inthso362 i really don't think humanities only problem is to plant trees XDD

If you accuse people of academic misconduct you can ignore all the evidence.

@@btf_flotsam478 If you ignore actual evidence then nothing makes sense.

@@btf_flotsam478 is fake science academic misconduct? Are scientists allowed to be wrong? If your conclusion helps get the next grant to employ you another 10 years will you have bias? I say yes.

Prove that it happens.

@@raymonlandry228 lol it's there for all to see. You barely have to scratch the surface just to see the basic change done to historical data sets. They do it in front of everyone's eyes but barely anyone looks.

But then he'd be wrong right?

Not anywhere within five orders of magnitude of the profits of the ppl & enterprises profiting off fossil fuels. Just ask Joe Manchin (if u can get near him in his Maserati or on his yacht) or the Kochs (if u can get past their Blackwater security teams).

You realize that the study was about comparing forecasts to observations that we now have, right? 0.15 - 0.2 degrees are for around 1970 to 2017 (check 2:20 and 8:03) 4:48 depicts forecasts starting 2015 to 2100, a completely different timespan. Both charts have nothing to do with each other... And you are correct that these error bars mean, that you can get a lower limit on what the true change per decade was by drawing a straight line through their lower ends, ending up with around 0.13 C/decade. You did not inform us clearly though, that in statistical models, drawing a straight line at the top of the error bars is an equally valid option and leaves us with a bit more than 0.2 degrees of warming. Not sure why you think this is boring science, as its a clear warning sign that we are about to lose whole ecosystems, when temperatures keep rising like this (leading to catastrophic 3 C warming in total up to 2100, as seen in 4:48)...

@HeartlandInstitute Do not listen to Simon. Check them out. They speak on the real truth. The evidence speaks for itself.

@@austinmeredith6647the Heartland Institute is a conservative think-tank that famously argued that cigarettes and second hand smoke are not dangerous. It’s VERY ENLIGHTENING how many climate skeptics bring this group up.

@@andyghkfilm2287 And you have not presented any information to the contrary that would rebuttal the claims that the Heartland Institute talks about. I have read the IPCC reports, I have seen the left leaning news outlets and so called journalists sensationalizing the debate,, I have seen the graphs, I have listened to John Coleman, I have listened to other academic institutions that speak about climate, I have listened to Al Gore and all of the politically charged institutes pushing for climate change reform, I have seen the 97% of climate experts saying global warming being debunked, and so much more. For you to use the ooo they are a conservative institution does not mean anything. As a citizen it is your job to look at both sides claims but also actions and then look at the data and what is really going on and after doing my job, it is quite clear on what is really going on. Your argument is weak just like every other person attacking people like me who truly use their brain and look at all the material and let the truth speak for itself. I also have a Masters of Engineering. I know how to read peer reviewed literature, read graphs, understand causality, correlation, and association. Generally speaking, not all, majority of conservatives can actually speak on the topic and have looked at both sides and can cite sources and know the actual terminology where as I am finding more and more these days that liberal / leftist news sources, academic outlets, people in general have only heard of one side, do not do real research, are emotional triggered when presented opposing views, attack those whos eyes have seen elsewhere, do not present any valid argument, can not produce a logical string of sentences, and avoid the actual argument being discussed. So sorry, I have heard all the parrots talking, I have seen the 32 governmental models, seen the truth behind the NASA data, seen the truth behind the IPCC lies and the United Nations attempt to hijack out world behind the World Economic Forum, the lies of the academic community and so much ,more. Clearly you are driven by wanting this lie to push through or you have not looked into it all because if you have and you still choose to deny the real reality that the warming is naturally made and will cool down soon, then you are just willfully ignorant. Also only a fool would listen to the body of the IPCC because they have been wrong since the inception and have over predicted the claims. Miami Florida is not under water like Al Gore said it would by 2014, India's wheat is booming where as IPCC said they would be loosing crops, not to mention most of these graphs only go back to 1979 or as early as the 1850s, what about all the oceanic core samples, lithosphere core samples, and the ice core samples... I am going to trust the core samples over a generated model based on inaccurate models based off of proxies and when blended give you "am acceptable model" with inherent bias. Oceans are not rising like they claim, heat waves in the 1930s were hotter than now, the core samples demonstrate there has never been a period were Co2 and temperature have any association other than a time lapse, and that plants love Co2. Humans have lived in hotter periods. The scientists ignore the Holocene period as well. Science is about being object and building a hypothesis that can be repeated and if producible, you can infer further questions to expand on your hypothesis. All of these scientists that are producing fear claim the science is settled and use the word consensus. That is the opposite of what science actually is, in fake that is cherry picking through sorcery to fit a narrative which is an agenda... OOO that is right.... Agenda 2021 and 2030. Gee works perfect how they want to attack Co2 and methane.. Both from natural fuel sources that boost the economy and bring so much wealth to countries and its people along with eating meat which is the most nutrient dense food you can eat and is essential for a healthy functioning brain and healthy hormones and metabolism. Suppose Bill Gates wants you eating is cancer filled slum meat or Klaus wants you eating "DEE BUGS".... You will own nothing and be happy... Your climate denialism on the real truth is hilarious. Ultimately sure I could be wrong, but when push comes to shove, I listen to people who can speak on the topic, produce literature, and have an open debate and argue their side and rebuttal the other side, not listen to someone who has proven to be lying, is tied to an actual agenda, forces real scientists to change data to continue to receive grant funds, etc. Also seeing leftists want to abort babies, hate marriage, not all of them. and conservatives enjoy hunting and fishing, and want a future for their children, not using this as a valid argument, but it would seem conservatives would be more inclined to push for the best solution to ensure their kids are taken care of and they can enjoy their wildlife hobbies. Just saying. All in all the evidence shows warming is occurring, it is natural and is expected, and time is the revealer of all truth. Just in the past 23 years, since 2000, the climate alarmists have been wrong, just like they said in the 1970s, 1950s, the 1920s and so forth. Always lying.... Clearly predicting climate is more mass control oppose to actually understanding the true nature we find ourselves in. Forgive my grammatical errors. I am not going to go back to peer review this. Whelp. Bye.

@andyghkfilm2287 libertarian group, though, tbh any group being a bit too self-righteous is appalling, in my opinion at least (no matter what they are standing for).

Yeah, felt a little too click-baity for me. I understand what audience he was aiming for but I think people who believe in climate change and are interested in the science and the nuances make up a lot more of his audience.

RU-vidrs do real time A/B tests with video titles to see what works best. Let’s come back to the video in a few days to see if the title changed! I agree with you though that the current title is deceptive and therefore feels wrong, but ultimately creators are going to do what works best which I find to be an acceptable rationale. Watch veritasium’s video on clickbait, it was pretty cool

This is part of his Trojan Horse strategy to bring in deniers (see also "Where's the rise in sea level?" and "Why aren't the polar bears dying?" videos he's made). I'm not fully convinced that this is a good idea also, but I think any manner in which to critically engage with climate science rather than dogmatically repeating bumper sticker sayings about it, pro or anti, is a good thing.

It's called clickbait.

@@deawinter If you look at the number of dislikes on his videos "Shouldn't sea levels have risen by now?" or "Whatever happened to GLOBAL COOLING?", I think it's clear that his videos with these types of titles do reach climate change deniers. (You could argue that the fact that they're disliking it means the videos aren't effective, but it would be very surprising if their beliefs were fundamentally altered by a single video.) I get that it doesn't really make sense as a title for us, but the people who it's actually important that these videos reach are climate change deniers.

Cities produce and hold heat much more than open land. As cities grow I would expect their average temperatures to rise over time. So this data might not be the best to look at for a full representation of what's going on

they didn't PREDICT an impending ice age... there were some scientist who assumed this could happen based on theoretical models which were not based on data and it was even highly controversial then among the scientific community and never became broadly accepted and verified by other peer reviews. That's why it very quickly disappeared again from the scientific discourse

Garbage in. Garbage out.

_slides on tin-foil hat_ They're faking everything to get our money!

@@btf_flotsam478 actually it is a million dollars scam

You have zero proof for your claim.

Then what they're doing is trying to amass as much wealth as possible on their way out the door, without even a shred of concern for the well-being of humanity. Which is consistent with the notion that the vast majority of corporate oligarchs are greedy, narcissistic, sociopaths.

Is a healthy warm up or warever

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vnmzOeG_N64.html

@@coloneloftruth9621 Be careful what you wish for. With additional global warming comes more frequent, severe and widespread floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, infestations of pests, and on and on.

@@coloneloftruth9621 Yes, but as I say the weather-related disasters have been getting more frequent, severe, and widespread in concert with the rise in average global temperature. And that observation, based on actual measurements with thermometers, etc, is completely consistent with what the immutable laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are telling us SHOULD be happening.

and what picture do we get if we don't cherry pick and talk about all landice on earth? Galciers and greenland to be specific.

@@chimp09 Point well taken. But perhaps Artic ice has been a geologically recent phenomenon? And also Greenland ice?

@@Inalienablerights15 "But perhaps Artic ice has been a geologically recent phenomenon?" Way more recent than antarctic ice, yes. But that does nothing to the problem. It is not the melting ice in itself that is the problem, nor is it the warming in itself that is a problem. The problem is the rapid change.

@@chimp09 Speaking of rapid change, what happened to the claim that the polar bears were all dying due to ice melting. Turns out, the bear population has DOUBLED since that untrue inconvenient truth was revealed.

@@Inalienablerights15 I have never seen this claim made in any scientific paper. I have only ever been linked to blogs or some crappy media site, who (surprise surprise) get all sorts of stuff wrong all the time. So I don't really care about polar bears to be honest. Do you have a scientific source that claimed that polar bears will die out because of climate change / ice melting in a short time? Otherwise lets call this claim what it is: crap. And move on.

Absolutely! The environmental movement is its own worst enemy. The fact is that most of them have hijacked it for other monetary or political goals. It has become a mire of misinformation and hyperbole that the average person becomes disengaged with, although they outwardly pay homage for an easy life.

@@GGTutor1 I partly agree, but ulterior motives aren't the only reason movements go bad. Well-intentioned mistakes are a problem too, and we shouldn't jump to corruption or ill intent for all misuse.

@@fellinuxvi3541 Very true, but it is easier to call out the bad actors and then those who are actually interested in finding the truth can hopefully float to the top. I think it is too late for that now, unfortunately, the waters have been so muddied that it is very hard to get an accurate picture unless you make it a full time job. The average person just doesn't have the means to know what is actually going on.

We're going to drown in 2 inches of rising sea?

Dragon Korean

And people who doesn't watch this channel will only see start of the video which doesn't explain the problem and will only make them don't believe in climate change science

🤔 Ditto for Brexitards and their incoherent nonsense.

western world(including australia) is still responsible for more than 80% of the green house gases emissions. They may not produce it themselves, but they are buying goods and services produced by those emissions.

@@ritwikreddy5670 Makes no difference when the talk of reducing emissions only happens in the Western World.

@@defeqel6537 The pollution went from the West to the East. It's like you think moving something doubles it.

About surface temperature data being inaccurate - this was indeed true decades ago, and has been a challenge for short term measurements (ice cores are good for long-term temperature estimates but not so great at individual years or even decades) but satellites have greatly improved our temperature measuring ability globally. Infared radiation relates fairly directly to how hot a surface is - it's how blackbody radiation works, and how thermal cameras work. Many infrared and microwave satellites orbiting around Earth regularly measure these wavelengths to gain temperature readings, and have been taking simultaneous measurements for the past ~50 years to compare and contrast how these measurements change. Almost all temperature records you see in the modern day are based on satellite data, taking into account ground-based temperature data only to calibrate the satellite measurements as accurately as possible. As such I'd argue they are quite accurate at preventing systematic error from measurement biases from only recording in a few geographic locations and whatnot.

@@aperson1 "Almost all temperature records you see in the modern day are based on satellite data" They very much are not. Surface temperature data is exactly that, thermometers on the surface measuring temperature. Satellite data is separate and more rarely used when doing these comparisons. I cannot remember actual figures (or whether they were relative to land area), but there were something like 1000 times more measurement points in the North America compared to South, and something like 10 000 times more compared to Africa. Satellite data seems really accurate and all, but not sure how useful it is when tracking climate change if the premise is that less radiation gets out as it is trapped in the atmosphere.

Irrelevant. Not only do climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change, they have predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Also mainstream climate models have accurately projected global surface temperature changes. You obviously don't know how well the models that scientists use actually work nor how they work. Climate projections from main stream climate science have been accurate for fifty years. No lack of predictions on track. The general circulation models are right enough to project future climate trends to usable accuracy and usable confidence. Problem is deniers and “skeptics” of climate science often cherry pick the extreme end of projections, which is statistical malpractice. Mid-range projections (models always produce a probability-based range) have been strikingly accurate for over 50 years. Look up Hausfather et al 2019 "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections," Geophysical Research Letters. You will notice from the figures, observations are inside the projection cones.

@@rps1689 Indoctrinated nonsense. Models are _never_ accurate. If they were, everyone would agree that human CO2 emissions are causing rapid global warming. But they're not. Models are used in place of verifiable, replicable data and empirical observations. If those supported the global warming scare, models wouldn't be necessary. Models are opinions, nothing more.

LOL true,.... Obama is God.

🤣🤣🤣

I like when people fulfill their promises.

@@businessproyects2615 well if Obama hadn't saved the planet I suppose we wouldn't be here to call him out on it.

@@lewisner Fair enough, still we should call him SuperObama. :)

I think that you might be confused because the colour scale for Hansen's prediction is different from the colour scale of the modern map. Look at the contours, not the colours.

@@IamGrimalkin There is no colour scale for Hansen's prediction, at least not in this video. Nice try, but this video is not convincing on that topic at all. There is therefore no way to compare the two maps and know how close Hansen's prediction is to reality. And when fractions of degrees are pointed to as evidence of impending doom, it's very important to know exactly what is predicted and when. Especially if you are advocating abolishing tried and true means of supporting a standard of living that far exceeds that of only a hundred years ago.

My masters mainly was on numerical modeling and I worked with statistical modeling on my work terms from UniWat so I have some experience in this area. I read R A Fisher in the original on work terms.

No I do not find the graphs shown at 8:07 the least bit intimidating once I understand the axis etc. Don't be stupid.

He said it would happen if CO2 emissions somehow grew exponentially. I don't think they did, correct me if I'm wrong (and yourself if you are).

@@btf_flotsam478 - you're wrong, they did grow

He didn't say that. He said that assuming an exponential growth on emmisions.

If you predict it will get colder, warmer or stay the same you will be correct. 🫤

@@onlymyopiniontech That's exactly what Hansen did. His 'predictions' coverred the gamut, making it almost guaranteed that one of them would be - sorta - right. In the event, one out of three (using excessively wide error bars), was _sorta_ right. That's not science, that's advocacy.

Eh. Energy density and availability suck.

Liquid single cell organisms (mostly) from the era of the dinosaurs. In terms of efficiency? Possibly. Ignore the increasing cost of extraction, the emissions, and other negative aspects... not the least of which being the finiteness of the source. "Oil good, it's stored solar." Simple concepts for simple minds, I suppose.

Stored up solar energy.

Does anyone seriously think that there ever were enough dinosaurs to make possible the billions of barrels of petroleum that have been recovered so far?

@@geoh7777 It was single celled life, something akin to plankton or algae, not dinosaurs.

sure if the two sides both have merit, for example disputing the methodology of how people got the predictions because you think that they haven't factored in something important and you can at least logically prove it. however stupid claims like the earth had more co2 in the camberian, therefore who cares. is a dumb argument therefore shouldnt get as much debate time as climate warnings. also just to cover my bases about my dumb claim, its not really the amount of co2 in the air thats the problem, its the speed of the increase that is gonna cause the issues, if we had 50 million years to reach 4000ppm, life and humanity would adapt to a very slowly changing climate and the effects would be minimal compared to just natural extinction events. however we have put in more then 50 percent extra since the industrial revolution, thats only about 250 years and the sharpest increase has been in our lifetimes. this is too fast for most eco systems to adapt too

The problem is that the side that says climate change isn't caused by humans has no good evidence to present. It's disingenuous to present both sides as equal.

agree, won't be listening to this guy again

@@marcokite Hey; it's sponsor is the UN so no surprises there. Pretending to say one thing while saying the opposite.

@@Fishmans Mark me as a climate change skeptic, but I'd get on board if nuclear energy expansion were part of the plan, because of its many collateral benefits. Unfortunately, there's not a chance of that happening until the Democrats who believe in disastrous climate change throw all their weight behind it. No sign of that yet.

Workable solutions are suggested and being developed or already exist, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to listen because you hate Swedish people or something

No

YES. Fuck.

True Maldives Islands Did not Sink in 2018 as they said would happen.

No credible source said that. This has already been disproven. But you continue to deny. Until you can’t. I just wish I could be there to see the look on your face when your whole illusion shatters around you.

@@EncephalitisifyIt won’t. They will never realize they’re wrong.

You mean the climategate scandal that wasnt a scandal at all but rather a smear campaign as further facts released? Actually the data is adjusted. The datasets we as humans work with are adjusted. Which is why different datasets wit hdifferent methologies from different organizations match pretty close with each other and with sattelite data...

"... scientists know those measures are very open to Urban Heat Island distortion...." B.E. concluded that the UHI effect is -0.11c +/- 0.11c and thus not a factor in any global average temperature databasxe.

@@Desertphile they concluded from the adjusted data that urban and rural lacked any big difference, when we look at the adjustment techniques there is a part in which they try to "correct" the UHI effect by equalizing the most urban to the most rural measurements making the urban temp colder and the rural temp hotter; so yes there is a big difference, if we take the data from actual rural zones and actual urban zones without the adjustments the rural mark much lower to no waming that urban

@@RabeltCorez ;"they concluded from the adjusted data that urban and rural lacked any big difference...." Indeed. In fact it is unnoticeable and found to be " indistinguishable from zero."

@@Desertphile your lack of reading ability is incredible, tho expected, only the adjusted data showed that lie, the raw data produced the opposite, so taking into account that NOAA and NASA controls the adjustment looks pretty bad

I took a class called “Critical Thinking” in college. Great class. I remember we once were made to consider whether or not it was morally okay for a brother and sister to be in a sexual relationship if they both mutually consented and there was no possibility of a child being born-and how that ethical question put a fat halt on everybody’s preconceived notions about morality and disgust, lmao.

Stop being silly with your mischievous manufactured talking points. I know you think god is taking care of everything. That is what got us into trouble in the first place. LOL.

No THEY didn't say that. The disinformation mongers tell you that's what THEY said.

do you have a source for that,.....

Check your sources. Do you really think this was scientific consensus?

@Mark Jones What's your source for 1 to 5 meters? Sea level Rise is measured in millimeters per year. You shouldn't believe any random stuff you read or hear. Meters of sea rise in such a short span of time has never been the scientific consensus.

Right and please explain the medieval warming period, The end of the last ice age.and the younger and older Dryess. None of those were caused by humans the world has natural warm and cooling cycles. So yes the world might be getting a bit warmer and there are things we can do to mitigate or take advantage of the situation however human intervention won't stop the natural cycles of the planet.

No they don´t. Papers are meant for people who know their shit to at least some degree or at the very least are capable of looking it up properly. The reality is barely anyone and certainly none of the nutters actually read papers. So where is the issue? Well with the reporting of said papers and the interests actively distorting it.

@@cynthiamarquez3370 If you bothered to read any scientific literature you would understand that the MWP Younger Dryas have all been accounted for and are relatively insignificant events compared to what we have coming. The Earth will transform to something similar to the Pilocene, which was 5 million years ago, before end of century . I suggest you start by reading about Milankovitch cycles, followed by looking at the IPCC report it would help you to become less confused and hopefully better informed.

​@@tonyvu1853 There are so much wrong with what your statements I don't know where to begin and I haven't got much time. so I will answer your first question for starters as I cannot spend all day. Climate scientists do no just look at 40 year trends but go back millions of years, your confusion is based on the fact the definition of climate is weather taken over a few decades. Obviously temperatures have been higher or lower before, just ask anyone child over 5 years old, You would have got this information from the paleoclimatic records, probably from a climate scientist, which is a bit ironic...... These climatic changes would have been in the main caused by Milankovitch Cycles, if you spent five mins understanding climate science you would have known this... The Earth was in a different orbit to today with different eccentricity, procession, obliquity and continents were in different places. Submarines have c02 levels of between 3500 ppm and 10000 ppm so I do not think humans have a problem with high levels of c02 to function. however the planet is not the same as the human body. I haven't got time to waste on answering the rest of your questions as all the answers are widely available to the public, you just need to look it up. You score very well on climate denier bingo, go look it up...... ;-)

The predictions were wrong?

The "Fee and Dividend" system, suggested by climate scientists like James Hansen, would make the poorer 70% of the population better off (by taxing the amount of carbon extracted by fossil fuel producers (the Fee) and distributing the money equally to all citizens (the Dividend). It is a failure of governments, not scientists, that such measures have yet to be introduced. There has been plenty of research into solar activity. That has if anything declined over the last fifty years, whilst temperatures have increased: recent global warming has not been caused by increased solar activity. The NASA graphic temperature vs solar activity provides a graph of solar activity and global temperature.

@@Tengooda Thanks for the info. I'll look at both of those things.

Shifting the energy supply to China from Arabic countries means the CCP become the world's leading supplier of energy. At the same time the CCP are the world's leader in carbon based power station construction. It isn't fossil fuel companies, it's China. You can't tell me they see the world's energy supply and don't think they would like to have all of that?

"We had a declining temperature from the 40’s to the 70’s" No, we didn't. We had a ~10 year spike from ~1935 until about 1945, which declined back to the trendline by 1950. This was on the high end of decadal variation, but within it.

@@Crispr_CAS9 I think if you look at the IPCC report below it show a clear decrease in global temperature from the mid 40’s to the early 70’s. archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=75 . So my question still stands. You will also note that the global temperature increase from 1900’s to 1940’s was pretty much the same increase from the mid 70’s to 2000 even though increase in CO2 levels in the former period were much less than the later period. This could suggest other factors are at play with increasing global temperatures

@@joeblow8994 "So my question still stands." Sorry, but your misunderstanding of a 20 year old summary doesn't make your misunderstanding of the data any more valid.

@@Crispr_CAS9 its irrelevant that the summary is 20 years old. The data in question hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. You still haven’t addressed the core question I raised whether the model hindcast accurately reflect the temperature pre 1970 or just after as shown in the video

@@joeblow8994 "its irrelevant that the summary is 20 years old." It's very relevant that you didn't understand it. Funny you didn't pay more attention to that part. "You still haven’t addressed the core question I raised" I did, you just didn't like it because you misunderstood a 20 year old summary.

Oh, you mean the journalist with no background in statistics at all? No, I haven't read his book, because with my statistical background and access to the scientific reports, I can come up with a better conclusion than that particular sub-human.

@@btf_flotsam478 What do those statistics tell you about calling people "subhuman" ? Remember to factor in 'history repeats itself.' and "I am a superior human".

@@bellezavudd "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.” - Robert Heinlein

@@btf_flotsam478 Really an appeal to authority !? The bureaucracy of ism will be so proud. Looks like you need to factor in a double dose of the "history repeats itself" and add at least one " by those who forget it".

@@btf_flotsam478 Really good logic; criticizing a book that you didn't read. Then judging a man because he disagrees with you.

What are you referring to, exactly?

Hi there logitech - the graph shown at 1.53 is not the collected temperature readings. The temperature record gets 'officially corrected' to improve errors. Unfortunately this means that a US temperature that is actually getting cooler then looks like it is getting warmer and the 1930's dust bowl 'never happened'. What I want to know is what are these corrections? and what is the scientific justification for them... then they take the corrected data and add estimated data from missing areas where no records are available. What process is there for this??

To answer your question, If you do a quick search for CO2 emissions graph you will see that from about 1945 to the present the increase in emissions has been linear (i.e a straight line on a conventional graph).

@@ezza200 straight line until around 2000, quite a bit higher afterwards

Yeah, seems like it doesn't it? I thought he polar bears were all gong to be dead by now, and the ice caps would be gone, and my house near the beach would be underwater.... more elements of failed climate predictions that he doesn't even touch here.

The scientific consensus in the 1970s was that the planet was warming and humans were responsible.

Brings to mind Hansen's so called "prediction" that Manhattan's West Side Highway would be underwater, which was actually a speculation on changes that might happen in NYC in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.

@@rps1689 CO2 has been rising steadily, but Hansen's predictions are not remotely close to coming true.

@@boogathon Be specific, what predictions?

Hanson made three predictions for three different CO2 emissions scenarios. The scenario that actually happened he correctly predicted the temp rise for. The bad people choose the prediction for emissions that didn't happen but don't explain that, so it looks like Hanson was wrong. That deliberate misrepresentation is what makes them BAD.

When you say "different scenarios" what are you actually referring to? a) The RCP scenario options that show what is likely to happen depending on how humans decided to react/behave. or b) Any apparent changes to the active scenario trajectory we are indicated to be on, from one IPCC report to the next If it is "a)" then that is provided as a range of scenarios to assist in mitigation planning and objectives priority and adoption advice. If it is "b)" then the active scenario trajectory can be impacted depending on our mitigation effort progress between one report to the next.

The pay for denial is 2-3 orders of magnitude gtr than the pay for supporting AGW. Obvious xmpl: Harvard's "Willie" Soon (astrophysicist, not climatologist) who famously got 1.25 MILLION Exxon-Mobil $ for his screeds. Given the hi incentives, the fact that virtually NO climate scientists still push the denial narrative is... impressive. U'd think @ lst a FEW wld sell out. But no. The "scientist" deniers all turn out to be geologists, physicists, doctors (!) -- no climate scientists. Fancy that!

As opposed to the much more heavily subsidised fossil fuels industries?

@Mark Jones How can satellites take accurate measurements of sea depth when the moon is constantly pulling the oceans this way and that? Also, the atmosphere is always subject to jet streams, cloud formations, etc. so temperature measurements are subject to a vast number of other variables. Seems like a very inexact science on which to base the world's energy policies.

BANG ON comment

Thank you

Dang, true and real.

You again! …You’re an idiot!

"...so how the global increase of fossil fuels consumption went in the period pertaining to Hanson's predictinions?" Emissions have been growing in an approximately linear rate since 1950.

@@Crispr_CAS9 about 10% increase from 1990 to 2000, and about 50% increase since 1990 to 2019, hardly linear (edit: it was pretty linear until ~2000, but rose quite rapidly afterwards, apart from the last year and half)

@@defeqel6537 "hardly linear" Box-Tidwell says statistically linear, 16 sigma. It's linear.

But It didn’t because we took action

NO HE FUCKING DIDNT YOU FUCKING CHRIST I CANT

No one has ever discounted that the energy from fossil fuels has benefitted human life. But it has also resulted in bad things as well. Not only that but there is massive inequality in the distribution of that wealth. This is why some of the narratives are changing towards climate justice because it is the world's richest that is benefitting inordinately from the burning of fossil fuels, not to mention the fossil fuel industry. That's why we're asking for subsidies for fossil fuels to stop and instead be given to green or renewal companies instead.

You're arguing with a straw man instead of addressing the topic.

He is referring to the people getting money and political power because we are using oil and natural gas.

Everything but Co2 was equal to or barley less than prediction C Co2 was at or above prediction A thus none apply directly but prediction B seems like a reasonable first order approximation unless you want to re run numbers which seems like a reasonable step to me assuming we have access to and can re run the original code.

How is that relevant whatsoever

@@ITR How... isn't it?

@@mooseitself It's a video temperature in relation to climate change. Even if there's 60 years of oil left, we should be using renewable energy instead

@@ITR Homie... 60 years of oil is practically nothing, I am in no way saying that's a good thing lol. You think the US is just gunna "run out of oil" you got another thing comin and we're already at the tipping point yo, we don't have 60 years left to burn the stuff without also dealing with the severe effects of climate change. I'm not even sure how you could read what I wrote and take away that I'm defending oil usage... lol.

@@ITR Why?

What I find ironic about C is that renewable energies are (at the end of the day) just more energy, even if you ignore climate change. The oil companies' desire to keep their control over power, suppressing the development of renewable energies as early as the 60s and 70s, gave China the time to use BOTH the dirtiest coal power plants and cleanest renewable energy and spearhead ahead. Right now, the USA is catching up in renewable technology to China, while it had the potential to have lead the world in renewables decades ago.

I'm not surprised that the models of surface temperature match the actual surface temperature and don't match the high altitude temperature. Presumably models of high altitude temperature would instead agree with the satellite and balloon measurements.

Not sure where you read that from, but a simple google search comparing sattelite data to ground data shows that they match up very well.

@@Game_InSky It does depend on the area though largely this is due to the fact that the way the satellites take their measurements and calculate the temperature. Basically a spectrographic analysis of light reflected from the tile is used to determine land use necessary to calculate key parameters like emissivity, reflectivity, etc necessary to convert the IR measurements to temperature values. Unfortunately these values are calculated by using ground based survey data combined with temperature measurements at sites that were initially not well distributed across different biomes. Mostly this was due to particularly due to some biomes playing host to far more well funded research institutes with the funding to set up and monitor these long term survey sites Temperate biomes for example in particular because Europe and the US. But Tropical areas data was less available and it was very poor for things like Savannas and extrapolating from the dataset made measurements for some areas particularly Africa less reliable. This is something that is improving due to more partnerships between institutions to set up much needed research sites in places where the data is poor. But yeah long story short the data is correlates significantly better for some regions than others but at least this problem is better understood now and more effort is being put into obtaining the data necessary to make the calculations even better everywhere. This is a good thing though this is how science works we theorise, collect data, analyse and test theory, use lessons learned to update theory and repeat to get the best most accurate theoretical model possible.

@@seraphina985 Ah, I see. Yeah, interpolation is a lot less accurate when there are numerous factors affecting temperature. I guess most of the data currently shown is for temperate climates I'm guessing then.

Satellite data shows about 0.45C global temperature increase over the last ~40 years. So far seems like a pretty linear increase, so we can probably expect about 1C increase in the next 100 years, and it should be mostly heating up the poles and near them according to IPCC.

The climate is changing.... but we are not the be all end all when it comes to the equation...... There's many natural processes at work here..... the magnetic poles are shifting and have accelerated over the last 100 years.... this has decreased the strength of the magnetosphere allowing the energy from solar coronal mass ejections to have a greater impact on our atmosphere.... this in turn has helped change the trajectories of the jet streams, upsetting our "normal" weather patterns..... There is also the chandler wobble which effects the geographical north and south axis.... the earth wobbles in precession every 26,000 years..... There's also the milankovitch cycle..... this changes earths cyclical precession around the sun from a circular shape into a oval shape. This creates tidal heaving in earths core and continental plates, leading to more earthquakes and volcanic activity..... None of the above we can do much about.... that's why we're not told about it in the news daily, they also can't sell us a solution to these problems...... notice how many are buying bunkers though? We do however need to change our behaviour, we can do more to stop poisoning our environment and the air we breath, this is our home, let's stop poisoning the well before we can't anymore. Peace, power and freedom to all.

@@WSmith_1984 So can't we do both? Ajust and prepare. We need a strong econemy to help against the disasters we can't avoid. Why destroy it to maybe avoid one disaster?

@@wildshape yeah we need to do both.... but the powers that be aren't trying to encourage us to prepare, they want us to spend and fund their crazy ideas, they don't care what happens to you and I, they are trying to protect themselves after spending years profiting and poisoning our earth..... when all we really need to do is go back to basics. But regardless of what we do with Co2, the climate will still change and alter because of the natural processes I've mentioned.....

@@WSmith_1984 Indeed they don't care. They own all those factories in China and other 3th world countries. They can improvce them in the next few years. That will greatly help the enviroment. But they don't talk about that now are they? They all go their super Davos club on their private jets to discus how we normal people must change our lives

@@wildshape precisely.... this is more about controlling us and how we live our lives than saving the planet..... Central planners, think of the whole as an ant colony, they don't mind losing some ants here and there or even a few hundred thousand as long at they keep achieving what they set out to do, which is gain more control, more resources and more power..... It's time to tell to fukc off, it's time for none violent non compliance.

For some reason the name still has science cred. They are milking it for all its worth.

He did not lose the case and he did not refuse to supply data. The judge ruled that too much time had elapsed.

@@pshehan1 LOL - and why did the time lapse ... Because Mann failed to provide his part of the deal to the judge. Not only did Mann lose because he failed to produce his data on time -- ten years for what was done is not enough??? Mann was ordered by the court to pay Ball's legal cost -- the loser did not pay as he deserves to.

@@thomasmartin406 Michael Mann v. Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. and John Doe Filing Date: 2011 Reporter Info: Court No. VLC-S-S-111913 Status: Partially Settled and Dismissed Jurisdictions: Canada British Columbia Supreme Court Principal Laws: Canada Libel tist Michael Mann filed a libel claim against Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. ("FCPP"), and an unnamed defendant ("John Doe"). The defendant Ball participated in an interview with the FCPP and John Doe during which Ball made allegedly false and defamatory statements inferring that Michael Mann is guilty of criminal fraud in relation to the alleged “Climategate” scandal or alternatively that there are probably grounds to find Mann guilty. The plaintiff sought damages, an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements, and a court order for the defendants to remove the interview containing the defamatory statements from all electronic databases, including the FCPP website. In June 2019, the FCPP settled with Mann and issued a retraction and apology on their website. On August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay. The court found that two periods of delay totalling 35 months constituted "inordinate delay" that could not be excused on account of the plaintiff being occupied with other matters. The court further found that this delay had caused prejudice to the defendant because three of the defendants' planned witnesses had died. The court dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's court costs.

@@thomasmartin406 LOL? There is a great video featuring an episode of a TV show, Conspiracy with Jesse Ventura show where the narrator says 'The governor's source [Ventura is a wrestlemania star turned state governor turned tabloid TV personality] has led June Sarpong [breathless reporter] to a small town on the outskirts of civilisation. It's here that a global warming critic says he is hiding for his life." Sarpong on a ferry says: "I admit I'm worried. When I get to the other side, I'm going to be outside of cell phone range. i don't know if anyone's following me or what to expect." The narrator continues: "She finds a man who does not want to be seen or named. A climate scientist who has been at the top of his field since the nineteen seventies, when the concern was global cooling. Sarong;:Can you tell us why you are in silhouette today for this interview? Frightened source: "Well because of the attacks on me personally..". Potholer 54 [Breaking in at this point]: "Now I've got no idea who this mystery climatologist is. One person we know it definitely isn't is Professor Tim Ball. After all the climatologist in hiding is described as a climate scientist who has been at the top of his field since the nineteen seventies, and we know that Tim Ball is a retired geography professor, he didn't study climatology until the nineteen eighties, and his only contribution to climate research was three papers looking at the history of the Hudson's Bay company, all now around thirty years old. The frightened source goes on to explain it is the sun which is responsible for climate change and this has been completely ignored by the IPCC Potholer 54: Well now we definitely know it's not Tim Ball, Because Tim ball doesn't sound e anything like that" [Plays clip of tim Ball being interviewed not in disguise] TimBall: "Well they virtually ignore the sun as a factor of climate change..." Potholer 54: "Well that's funny. Excuse me a second. Tim? Hello Tim. Is that you? I can see you. [Switches from silhouette of frightened source to Tim Ball] Yes it is you Tim..." Comedy gold.

Basically most of USA lacks understanding of statistics and research.

Lindzen is a well known skeptic who's gotten most of it wrong. "A disservice to the scientific method”: climate scientists take on Richard Lindzen: "“A pervasive aspect of [Lindzen]’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe [he] does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century.” They go on to point out that Lindzen’s arguments are not anywhere near sufficient to discount man-made climate change: “[…] We reassert that there is a substantial risk of human-induced climate change considerably larger than 1°C in global average this century and beyond. There is nothing in [Lindzen’]s talk to cast doubt on the existence of this risk.”

Quite honestly once I read the words "Richard Lindsen" I turn away. He is one of the individuals who is on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry and can't be taken seriously. Just google his name and find out by yourself.

Well the conclusion of your first link may be seriously questionned because Ecs is clearly not based only of models estimations (see the ecs multiestimation graph on the ipcc ar6 wg1)

This is what I thought he was going to discuss. I was taught in school that if the temperature kept rising the ice caps would be gone by last year... but here I'm bring told that the temperature DID keep rising but the ice caps haven't melted. So to me, the prediction was more wrong than right because the disastrous consequence that was predicted was wrong. If average temps can rise by a million degrees with no catastrophe then I'm not really concerned, but if they will rise by .1 degree and cause extinction and ice caps to disappear then I'm very very concerned. I know that's a highly exaggerated example, but I'm just trying to point out that the consequences of the climate changing is what we're really concerned with as a species and most of those predictions have been just absurdly wrong.

@@crispy9175 check out 4:50 re sea ice models though. Looks like they all have awhile to.go before there is no sea ice. With a couple of them never reaching that state.

as many ecologists have said... Climate Change has no effect on the numbers and intensity of Storms, draughts, floods, tornadoes,... etc. We havent seen any significant increase of those things and their intensities are comparable to those years ago.

@@RaskaTheFurry I think the big thing is, big storms are happening all the time, and if you see the weather and you think climate change, you will assume the storms sensationalized in the media for views is a result of climate change, rather than realizing they've happened every year forever.

The NASA datasets are also adjusted to reflect the expected results so them using that as a comparison is kind of an pointless exercise as they're just using fucky datasets to prove that fucky models produce fucky results.

Me too.

... should be giving him a face slap if he didn't. Simple. And the deniers too.

OMG. I doubt you are a scientist or you're either very bad at it or completely dishonest. The interglacial warm period peaked 6,000 years ago. The planet had been cooling since until the Industrial revolution. Since then GHGs have made the temperature soar. The fossil fuel industry takes in trillions of dollars a year and spends billions in denial to ensure those profits. Documented. See: Merchants of Doubt) The rest of that nonsense you wrote is shameful disinformation. Vermont has reforested because farms were abandoned. Not because of climate.

Even the ones that understand are purposely going along because there’s no future for a corporate journalist who doesn’t maintain and shield the essential narratives. And this is THE most essential as far as the ruling class is concerned. This is viewed as their ticket to global rule. They will use it to keep the third world from developing their own resources and to keep the masses from rebelling over steadily declining standards of living (due to us reaching the terminal phase of our debt-based monetary cycle).

They will not.

its warmed fast due to solar effects, its the poles its where all the charge particles come in, also ozone lost as well has increased the temps not co2....

@@bencoad8492 no, that is inaccurate, at beat, and a lie, at worst. The main drivers are the loss of ice works as a feedback loop, because ice reflects quite effectively, while dark ground doesn't, and the melting of permafrost releasing methane (a greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO² is) into the atmosphere there. The ozone pretty much healed itself once we stopped using CFCs as propellants. In fact, the hole over the north pole has healed better than the one over the south pole, which sorta destroys your hypothesis.

@@thomasstephan7719 citation effing needed.

@@MaryAnnNytowl What is effing?

I think if you look you'll find that: A. those were not predictions by climate scientists. B. The statements would suggest that it was one end of a range of time and not dates certain.

yea he did deliberately ignore the sensational news

@@007kingifrit 🤔 Good. Sensational news = mischief making and must be rebutted as such.

🤔 There is another ‘Doomsday’ scenario concerning the existence of nuclear warheads and the risk of them being deployed. At present the clock used here is at four minutes to midnight, when all hell will break loose. That is how close we are to a ‘hot’ war. However the total number of these weapons known to exist has been reducing as required by international treaty - except that the British Prime Minister has stated he will defy the treaty and add 200 warheads to those already available in British naval control. The lunacy is beyond measure and all the more extreme as it establishes a reason why the other nuclear powers should follow suit. Doomsday indeed.

Yes, all those hippies are really marching through the institutions 🤣

@@nigelliam153 Significant effect in tenths of degree

It is headed toward more Big Government and higher taxes. Then when the catastrophe doesn't happen it will be too late. Taxes will never go down and excess bureaucrats will never be laid off...

Start here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f4zul0BuO8A.html

​@@boogathon Big government ended the great depression and freed the slaves. Like nothing in our history was solved with giving more power to corporations.

@@pandemicphilly60 I don't blame you for believing that nonsense, because that's what you were told in the government's education factory, where you were indoctrinated. But it's a lie. _This_ is reality: Big Gov't had decades to end slavery, but it did _nothing._ One man with courage ended slavery, beginning with the Emancipation Proclamation: Abraham Lincoln. Big Gov't extended the Depression for years longer than it would have existed, by suddenly restricting credit exactly when providing liquidity would have made the Depression no worse than the 2007 - 2011 recession. And the gov't-caused Depression would have gone on another decade, if it were not for WWII. _That_ was what ended the Depression, not big gov't. As the great Ronald Reagan said: _It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government._ _All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government._ _In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; _*_government is the problem._* As always.

@@boogathon Unless you are a millionaire, those higher taxes won't even affect you.

But it has, the dust bowl 1930s were far warmer than today.

@@paulsmith1981 oh because Northern hemisphere was hotter that means the global temperature wasn't lower, good to know 🤡

Oh could it maybe be that we are shielded from the effects due to the money we have made off the climate change that we caused and the and the fact that the southern hemisphere has been more severely affected due to them being poorer and there being more of a chance for extreme events top occur

Everything but Co2 was equal to or barley less than prediction C Co2 was at or above prediction A thus none apply directly but prediction B seems like a reasonable first order approximation unless you want to re run numbers which seems like a reasonable step to me assuming we have access to and can re run the original code.

Given in the last 15 years we’ve innovated ways to decrease CO2 in some applications, yet increase it in diesel applications in order to reduce other harmful emissions, I’d say overall we are still on a linear increase. Should we have to manufacture vast amounts of machinery and devices in a short time to go green, expect a period of exponential increase, until we can get proper infrastructure in place. Also expect an increase due to mass increases in electricity generation, to which we can’t produce enough without burning vast amounts of fossil fuels.

One guy liked the comment and then took it back. I wonder who will know that I'm joking though?

Look up 'heyuri'

This particular bias in this case applies to fossil fuel shills. A true skeptic can honestly assess data differently but to convince others they have to validate their research and they have not done this. The shills just lie for money and the fossil fuel industry takes in $TRILLONS per year and funds climate denial to maintain profits. SEE: Merchants of Doubt