Video size: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
Show player controls
This scientist is lonely and wants attention. Coffee house intellectuals...those guys who couldn’t finish college but sit in starbucks pretending to be scientists. They confuse science with consensus. Consensus is political by its very nature...and is more often opinion driven...rather than fact driven. Politics is their religion... because they have nothing else. Consensus is one of the primary logical fallacies most frequently used by the left. “Everybody says so...so it must be so.” Take global warming for example. It happens...we all know, but scientific facts don’t prove people are the primary cause, despite the expressions of some scientists, often misquoted...it is still opinion. The gist of it is...the world is going to change whether we like it or not...whether by greenhouse effect, plate tectonics and volcanic activity, earthquakes, hurricanes, advent of an asteroid, or a super sun flare. Cow flatulence aside, it's been happening throughout the earth’s history. Everyone agrees pollution is bad and needs to go...but it doesn’t change the climate. Climate change is not going to happen from a UN summit. Until people turn to God and change who they fundamentally are, nothing is going to change for the better. As a parallel, putting bans on guns won’t do much of anything, because the wicked will still abuse the laws that good people already follow. The wicked will use it to their advantage...especially as we give up more freedoms. With global warming, they again miss the nail, hitting their thumb with the hammer. This is what is wrong with the whole socialist/godless agenda. Socialism is extremism. Extremism is evil...and whether it is practiced by science or religion, it isn’t going to help anyone, but will hurt everyone. Here is a history of their doomsday nonsense. The following points are from journalist Sam Dorman’s review of a doomsday list compiled by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. AOC recently suggested Miami would disappear in "a few years" due to climate change. The United Nations is convening a "Climate Action Summit" next week. And climate activist Greta Thunberg is on Capitol Hill this week telling lawmakers they must act soon. While data from NASA and other top research agencies confirms global temperatures are rising, a retrospective indicates the doomsday rhetoric is overheated. Apocalyptic predictions are standard for the DNC and elections. Here are a few. Dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters - famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations - if the world failed to act on climate change. An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000. Then there were fears that the world would experience a never-ending "cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere." That claim came from an "international team of specialists" cited by The New York Times in 1978. Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that "another ice age" was imminent. "Telltale signs are everywhere - from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest," the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that "Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast." In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by the 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age." Some of the more dire predictions came from Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who famously urged population control to mitigate the impacts of humans on the environment. Ehrlich, in 1969, warned that "everybody" would "disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years," The New York Times reported. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Ehrlich, warning of a "disastrous" famine," urged placing "sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water."Those predictions were made around the time former President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, the U.S. has adopted a series of environmental reforms aimed at limiting emissions. Years after those initial predictions, media outlets and politicians continue to teem with claims of apocalyptic scenarios resulting from climate change. Earlier this month, leading Democratic presidential candidates held a town hall on the issue and warned about the "existential" threat posed by a changing climate. Before the end of the month, 2020 candidates are expeted to have another climate forum at Georgetown University.CEI's report came just before the Uc.N. Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, an event that promises to "spark the transformation that is urgently needed and propel action that will benefit everyone."It also came a week after Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that Miami would be gone in a "few years" because of climate change. She was responding to critics of her ambitious "Green New Deal," which seeks to reach net-zero emissions within just decades.Ocasio-Cortez, whose plan has been endorsed by leading presidential candidates, previously joked that the world would end in 12 years if it didn't address climate change. But short-term predictions weren't a laughing matter in the years following "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary produced by former Vice President Al Gore. In 2008, ABC released an ominous video about what the world would look like in 2015. As the video warned about rising sea levels, a graphic showed significant portions of New York City engulfed by water. Gore himself famously predicted in the early 2000s that Arctic ice could be gone within seven years. At the end of seven years, Arctic ice had undergone a period of expansion, though recently it has been melting at a quicker pace.The reality is the media and democrats don’t care how often they are wrong as long as it gives them a job and the money and popularity that comes with it. Apologies have to be pulled like teeth...if they ever do happen...which is rare. Integrity is not important to them...just their purposeless agenda and those who foolishly buy into it.
@Kloko Loko only someone who cares about examining the issue in sincerity. You are right...it probably won't be anyone on the left...but it is there for their benefit should they decide to become reasonable.
You think that someone is going to read this...
Climate change hysteria is based on a hoax.
Denial is easiest thing, you do not have to do anything !
Great that this climate scientist is engaging with the media and the public to address the issue.The science speaks for itself but it surely needs trustworthy translators for the laymen. Especially since there’s so many people out there manipulating and cherrypicking scientific results to let a big crowd believe anthropogenic climate change isn’t real.
“Science is a bitch sometimes”-Mac
no science here try TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TOMY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TOMY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TOMY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TONY HELLER TOMY HELLER
Tony Heller from hell 👹
Watever The Case Maybe.. This Scientist Along With A Handful Of Others Who Are Truly Compassionate About Wat They Do & Wat Path They Chose To Pursue All For The Namesake Of Wat..?? We Heard Just Like The NewsCaster.. Money.. Wat Money..?? & Have Dignity To Find Humor In A Dim Situation.. My Admiration To Her.. Just Being Humble Gives More Riches Than Monetary Itself..🙏💯
NightLine Tonight.. Sept 16 Mon Ch 4 Lester Holt.. Climate Change.. Topic.. Maybe That Staff Member He Has Could Get Him Off Twitter & Watch Tv Alil.. Get A Broader Insight On How The Earth 🌎 Really Does Matter..💯
"And the corporations..." yeah you're talking to one of those corporations numbnuts
CNN question to a scientist: "How does that make you feel?" Lmao
Jeez, climate change has always been changing, follow the money!
Yes oil money they do not you to think that you need to slow down oil consumption until last drop
If an expert brings you evidence and facts to prove their point, just remember, "I don't believe it"
He doesn’t believe what we exhale is a pollutant. He doesn’t believe something that’s necessary for life will kill us. I don’t believe it either 🥪🍔🥩🥓🥚🍰
Than I suppose water is probably completely harmless and drowning is just a hoax by the jewish corporate ultra-leftist media satanists. Right.
Dr. Tim Ball PHD recently won a lawsuit against Dr. Mann of the “Hockey Stick” theory because Dr. Mann couldn’t, or wouldn’t provide his supposed data to back up his claim. Things that make you go 🤔
As Willy Wonka would say = _strike that - reverse it."_ The think tank which Ball was affiliated with - which does not disclose it's funding sources by the way claiming it get monies from "Foundations" which may or may not be affiliated with the fossil fuel industry - issued an apology to Mann and the lawsuit was shelved. So wherever you are getting your "facts" from = might want to find better sources. There is today a number of climate change denial entities such as the aforementioned think tanks etc. which often receive funding from people and groups which support industry. Accordingly they fund the dubious claims such as permeate the climate change denial discussion. Meanwhile the internet is rife with trolls who simply parrot those dubious claims. So just because you may really-really want to believe something = does not automatically make it true. Moral of the story: Mann won and not the other way around. Today we are seeing lawsuits being filed much the same as happened years ago to the tobacco industry. The fossil fuel industry has been sowing a lot of misinformation the same as the tobacco companies did long ago about cigarette smoking and it's harmful effects. As the truth comes out the fossil fuel industry will hopefully similarly be held liable as happened to the tobacco companies for all the trouble they caused. There should be a heavy price for industry which finances "junk science" to further it's profit seeking ends. Have a nice day.
Hogwash, if you have to summarize climate change in 1000 pages you know you are spewing wrong science, shameful. The climate is always changing, when it stops you need to worry. Follow the money, who is funding this department, any relation to IPCC or CRU, likely.
Extremes of climate will killed people. They always have and they always will.
Climate Change believers are a doomsday cult. They is no evidence that anything outside of natural variation is occurring. But climate change hysteria says the world is ending in 12 years. Complete insanity.
Permafrost will melt in 12 years if we continue like this. Permafrost didn't melt more than 500 000 years and store lot of dead animals. When this all biological material start to melt it will decompose and start to relese big amount of methane, 32 time stronger green house gas. This is ticking bomb. That's why 12 years and 2°C limit. AOC interpreted this false because she was shock and scared, but I do understand her
Remember. Real Science has measurements. Data. Details. Public discussion of scientific subjects requires details. Things like Climate whenever you see a complex subject like climate made out to be simple it is 100 percent propaganda. Political nonsense and Ia not science Numbers. Currently atmospheric CO2 is said to be around 400 parts per Million!!! Tiny !And 300 of that is natural ! And it’s andamn good thing because with NO CO2 all plants die. Most Life stops. On earthAre people unable to see the foolishness of the Climate hysteria? There is no way we can eliminate CO2. We exhale it 24/7. You probably emit more CO2 than a modern car because you never stops exhaling CO2!
Climate change? So what ever happened to Global Warming? Isn't the problem that the globe is warming? Global Warming is the problem right? So why not just say Global Warming? Why change it to climate change? The climate changes every day right? But the major issue is that the Earth is warming right? What is the Earth's climate doing? It's changing. How is it changing? The Earth is getting warmer! So why not call it Global Warming?😋
If all ice melt on north pole then there is a possibility that golf current stop. This will mean colder climate for UK for example. That's why, it doesn't effect whole world equally. So then climate change name
Prices of homes in Florida have dropped is because of climate change? 🤭😂
This is not funny.
300 leading scientists. I just wonder why these same scientists that Al Gore quoted in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" were so wrong. And there are also climate scientists who say that climate change has been going on as long as the Earth has been. Glaciers have been melting ever since the end of the last Ice Age. The Earth warming is what caused the end of the last Ice Age 12,500 years ago and glaciers have been retreating ever since.
why not believe?am I hurting the planet by believing in climate change? it's always easier to do nothing,,,
Repeat after me........DAN PEÑA FOR E.U. PRIME MINISTER
Trump is a demigod
The problem is CNN is so biased
The problem is these assholes cherry-pick
My cure for climate change:1. Sacrifice you first born to Zeus2. Sacrifice 50,000 bulls to Poisidien 3. Give your daughter's cherry over to Thor 4. Call the Chinese and tell them to stop perpetrating that hoax5. Don't ever, ever believe a word Trump says!
Both of these femmies need a big cock in their throat. For once.
Every one that thinks climate change Is fake are absolutely dumb
If there wasn't climate change the earth would still be in an ice age. Duh.TV educated.
*We will leave it to late before we realise we can no longer save our planet and humanity.*
@dino f first step: accept it is occurring. Second step: review the science and locate the greatest causes of co2 pollution and carbon emotions. Third step: understand and plan for the fact that oil gasoline / fossil fuels are dying. The transition to renewables and further research into more renewable fuels must continue! 4th: figure out how to get planes off of gasoline and switch to a different fuel source, because the emissions produced are even greater than cars. 5th: discuss and plan efforts to plant millions of more trees, as they take in c02 and breathe out oxygen. 6th: create world wide measures to force other countries to comply to the changes and regulations above and implement more. 7th: regulate the public transportation industry by switching from gasoline engines to electric engines. 8th: continue to advocate for the conservation of our wildlife, and the preservation of wilderness.
How do you think we going to save it ?
I've heard no real solutions thus far with possibly the exception of completely abandoning industry. A black tern weighs barely two ounces. On energy reserves less than a small bag of M&M's and wings that stretch to cover twelve inches, she flies thousands of miles, searching for the wetlands that will harbor her young. Every year the journey gets longer as the wetlands are desiccated for human demands. Every year the tern, desperate and hungry, loses, while civilization, endless and sanguineous, wins.A polar bear should weigh 650 pounds. Her energy reserves are meant to see her through nine long months of dark, denned gestation, and then lactation, when she will give up her dwindling stores to the needy mouths of her species' future. But in some areas, the female's weight before hibernation has already dropped from 650 to 507 pounds. Meanwhile, the ice has evaporated like the wetlands. When she wakes, the waters will stretch impassably open, and there is no Abrahamic god of bears to part them for her.The Aldabra snail should weigh something, but all that's left to weigh are skeletons, bits of orange and indigo shells. The snail has been declared not just extinct, but the first casualty of global warming. In dry periods, the snail hibernated. The young of any species are always more vulnerable, as they have no reserves from which to draw. In this case, the adults' "reproductive success" was a "complete failure.'" In plain terms, the babies died and kept dying, and a species millions of years old is now a pile of shell fragments.Extinctions Since 1800 Date ExtinctionsWhat is your personal carrying capacity for grief, rage, despair? We are living in a period of mass extinction. The numbers stand at 200 species a day. That's 73,000 a year. This culture is oblivious to their passing, feels entitled to their every last niche, and there is no roll call on the nightly news.There is a name for the tsunami wave of extermination: the Holocene extinction event. There's no asteroid this time, only human behavior, behavior that we could choose to stop. Adolph Eichman'sexcuse was that no one told him that the concentration camps were wrong. We've all seen the pictures of the drowning polar bears. Are we so ethically numb that we need to be told this is wrong?There are voices raised in concern, even anguish, at the plight of the earth, the rending of its species. "Only zero emissions can prevent a warmer planet," one pair of climatologists declare. James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, states bluntly that global warming has passed the tipping point, carbon offsetting is a joke, and "individual lifestyle adjustments" are "a deluded fantasy." It's all true, and self-evident. "Simple living" should start with simple observation: if burning fossil fuels will kill the planet, then stop burning them.But that conclusion, in all its stark clarity, is not the popular one to draw. The moment policy makers and environmental groups start offering solutions is the exact moment when they stop telling the truth, inconvenient or otherwise. Google "global warming solutions." The first paid sponsor [in 2010], Campaign Earth, urges "No doom and gloom!! When was the last time depression got you really motivated? We're here to inspire realistic action steps and stories of success." By "realistic" they don't mean solutions that actually match the scale of the problem. They mean the usual consumer choices-cloth shopping bags, travel mugs, and misguided dietary advice-which will do exactly nothing to disrupt the troika of industrialization, capitalism, and patriarchy that is skinning the planet alive. As Derrick has pointed out elsewhere, even if every American took every single action suggested by Al Gore it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 21 percent. Similarly, even if through simple living and rigorous recycling you stopped your own average American's annual three quarters of a ton of garbage production, your per capita share of the industrial waste produced in the US is still about twenty-five tons. That's thirty-three times as much waste as you were able to save by eliminating a full 100 percent of your personal waste. Industrialism itself is what has to stop. There is no kinder, greener version that will do the trick of leaving us a living planet. In blunt terms, industrialization is a process of taking entire communities of living beings and turning them into commodities and dead zones. Could it be done more "efficiently"? Sure, we could use a little less fossil fuels, but it still ends in the same wastelands of land, water, and sky. We could stretch this endgame out another twenty years, but the planet still dies. Trace every industrial artifact back to its source-which isn't hard, as they all leave trails of blood-and you find the same devastation: mining, clear-cuts, dams, agriculture. And now tar sands, mountaintop removal, wind farms (which might better be called dead bird and bat farms). No amount of renewables is going to make up for the fossil fuels or change the nature of the extraction, both of which are prerequisites for this way of life. Neither fossil fuels nor extracted substances will ever be sustainable; by definition, they will run out. Bringing a cloth shopping bag to the store, even if you walk there in your Global Warming Flip-Flops, will not stop the tar sands. But since these actions also won't disrupt anyone's life, they're declared both realistic and successful.The next site's Take Action page includes the usual: buying light bulbs, inflating tires, filling dishwashers, shortening showers, and rearranging the deck chairs. It also offers the ever-crucial GlobalWarming Bracelets and, more importantly, Flip-Flops. Polar bears everywhere are weeping with relief.The first noncommercial site [in 2010] is the Union of Concerned Scientists. As one might expect, there are no exclamation points, but instead a statement that "[t]he burning of fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas) alone counts for about 75 percent of annual C02 emissions." This is followed by a list of Five Sensible Steps. Step One? No, not stop burning fossil fuels-"Make Better Cars and SUVs." Never mind that the automobile itself is the pollution, with its demands-for space, for speed, for fuel-in complete opposition to the needs of both a viable human community and a living planet. Like all the others, the scientists refuse to call industrial civilization into question. We can have a living planet and the consumption that's killing the planet, can't we?The principle here is very simple. As Derrick has written, "[A]ny social system based on the use of nonrenewable resources is by definition unsustainable." Just to be clear, nonrenewable means it will eventually run out. Once you've grasped that intellectual complexity, you can move on to the next level. "Any culture based on the nonrenewableuse of renewable resources is just as unsustainable." Trees are renewable. But if we use them faster than they can grow, the forest will turn to desert. Which is precisely what civilization has been doing for its 10,000 year campaign, running through soil, rivers, and forests as well as metal, coal. and oil. Now the oceans are almost dead and their plankton populations are collapsing, populations that both feed the life of the oceans and create oxygen for the planet. What will we fill our lungs with when they are gone? The plastics with which industrial civilization is replacing them? In parts of the Pacific, plastic outweighs plankton 48 to 1. Imagine if it were your blood, your heart, crammed with toxic materials-not just chemicals, but physical gunk-until there was ten times more of it than you. What metaphor is adequate for the dying plankton? Cancer? Suffocation? Crucifixion?But the oceans don't need our metaphors. They need action. They need industrial civilization to stop destroying and devouring. In other words, they need us to make it stop.Which is why we are organizing to resist.Footnotes Mongabay.com, "Two·thirds of polar bears at risk" Butler, "Climate Change." Wilson, The Future of Life, p. 74. See also Olson, "Species Extinction Rate." Ravilious, "Only Zero Emissions." Aitkenhead, "Enjoy Life." Jensen and McMillan, As the World Burns, p. 15. Updated version of Aric McBay's analysis in What We Leave Behind, p. 290, based on 2010 EPA estimates of municipal waste and older EPA estimates of industrial waste. Jensen, Endgame, p. 36. Leber, "Trash Course," p. 21. In a small bit of good news, seven individuals were found in 2014. So the Albadra snail is in big trouble, but not yet actually exinct.
Those elites with vested interests in the fossil fuel sector accuse climate scientists of being self interested. Please! Ignorance abound. Such fools were saying the same to shield big tobacco companies until the evidence became too overwhelming. Ask any average smoker today if they believe the cancerous product their ingesting is causing them harm. Let’s hope climate scientists can achieve the same outcome.
In a decade I hope all the people who promote fossil fuel industry propaganda will so readily identify themselves when even their malfunctioning brain won't be able to deny it
I do not promote the fossil fuel industry. I just don't get hysterical hearing predictions from people who have less of an understanding of science than I do.
So why did sheikh islam buy a $15M mansion on the beach if it's going to be under water in 10 years?
We are one of the only countries that still has debates on whether global warming exists. What a crap show country
That simply displays the paradigm of the impact of money upon the political process Isaac + as well as ideology as alluded to. The current US administration is from an economic standpoint beholding to industry as well as from an ideological standpoint supportive of the same. They have long held the myth that business acts for the betterment of all via job creation. That of course becomes an increasingly untenable position today as technology replaces workers and the cumulative impact of publically owned companies via the stock market succumbs to investor pressures for profit in the short term. That also results in things like outsourcing as well as job elimination to increase stock prices.So there is no debate as far as the science conclusively pointing to climate change as being real despite the incredulity of some who as noted are merely reacting to misleading information. That denial and the subsequent policies we see which act to undermine efforts to limit climate change however are as noted ideologically based with that ideology a result of exposure over many years to the myth that businesses are beneficial towards workers and the environment. A business like any profit-driven endeavor is concerned solely with profit. Thus as history shows they will pollute the environment to save a buck if they can as well as stop policies which act to improve the overall environment such as climate change regulations. Anything they can get away with = they will. Have a nice day.
@Vary Olla Im sorry but if a whole government administration reversed climate protection laws and block bills that are meant to help, there is still a debate. Maybe amongst those who are educated and smart there isn't. The fact is that the people who ultimately make the decisions are the ones who are denying it.
Actually there is no real debate anymore. What there is = is misinformation which is being perpetuated via friendly media outlets which originates from the fossil fuel industry along with think tanks which support that industry for economic and ideological reasons. Also there is the impact of countless millions of dollars being funneled into the political campaigns of politicians who place holding onto their seats in the short-term over doing what is necessary for the long-term interests of the country.Moral of the story: in most of the world the energy industry does not hold sway. In a few countries however such as the US they are still able to spend tens of millions of dollars buying political protection as well as muddling the discussion via paid disinformation spread online and via cable television much the same as the tobacco industry once financed "junk science" so as to continue selling cigarettes claiming they were harmless. Have a nice day.
He should *RESIGN NOW!*
NO. Maybe you should just get a life now!
Scientists are just regular people who put there time towards improving the world. The get payed almost nothing. They are the people we need to trust.
@Rob M You know how it works?
Actually they're institutionalized on a scary level and no one challenges the warped logic of scientists who just don't understand how life works.
Isaac Erickson i completely agree.
It's like teachers. They could have done something else to make more money but they just get crapped on everyday some ungrateful kids and hope a few of them grow up and do great things
She is the new mystic meg? Yes I'm very skeptical of mere humans telling me what will happen in the future like it is a fact.
Actually scientists, more specifically medical doctors, can in fact predict the future with considerable accuracy. A doctor who informs an overweight chain smoker to stop smoking and get on a healthy diet or he will be dead within 5 years is usually right on the money. So who will you believe? A fat grifter and a habitual lier who says, "I don't believe it," or a scientist who holds a BSc in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto and an MSc and a PhD in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign? Hmmm.....tough choice here....
Hi. I am a poor simple Englishman who lives in Northumberland UK. I understand, and there is ample evidence, that the Roman invaders cultivated wine grapes here. That was 2,000 + years ago. Sad to say, it is not possible to grow any kind of vine in these parts today, owing to impossible climate reality. Please send global warming to this area as soon as you can, so I can start viticulture here!!
"Sad to say, it is not possible to grow any kind of vine in these parts today..."And yet strangely enough grapes are grown in England which produce some delightful wines. www.decanter.com/wine/wine-regions/english-wine/
Hayhoe is not an "atmospheric scientist," she is a political scientist. www.depts.ttu.edu/politicalscience/Faculty/Hayhoe_Katharine.php
Thank you for demonstrating what is colloquially referred to as "confirmation bias". That is where a person *ONLY* sees what they desire to see - while ignoring the totality of the evidence - so as to validate any preexisting biases. So Hayhoe's background is in astronomy and physics with her masters and Ph.D. in................climate science!!!! As such she in fact is a "atmospheric scientist". She current works however within the realm of political science - which simply means the realm of public policy making - as relates to climate change and polices relating to it had you read the rest of her resume and background. Moral of the story: so her background is in climate science while she works in that field within the larger area of public policy making of climate change policies. So some climate sciences work in the field obtaining data = while others as noted work at formulating governmental policies after studying the data obtained by those in the field. Best in the future to look at *ALL* of the evidence rather than just what you want to see. Have a nice day.
This evidence is so compelling; Just go buy a CO2 meter for 100 dollars and measure it for yourself, or let the pro's do it for you... www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/CO2 traps infrared heat, which warms the planet and melts the icecaps. You are witnessing an "avalanche effect", or "cascade event".
If they believe there own bs then why they out there buying beach front property
300 scientists say that climate change will cause devastation? What more evidence do I need?
If Trump doesn't believe it. Why does he wear so much suntan lotion. This is so serious. Yet this nut Trump doesn't believe in it. Please get rid of him before it's to late.🎃🎃
I have to be honest when someone who doesn't know that the sun causes burns with or without global warming, I can't expect you to know anything about how the climate really works.To be clear sun burns have nothing to do with climate change, *literally nothing.*
I hate Trump but climate change is hoax
Are you as STUPID as trump?
PyForce u are dumb
First is was global warming, now it's global cooling and tomorrow it's going to be global lukewarmness.
To tell people the science is settled and that's what you will believe is fascism.
she is smart and well spoken.....and even able to laugh about her skeptics
Which clearly means she's right!
She seems like the old highschool science teacher who's spent her whole life trying to prove her thesis and never did.
Climate has been changing constantly - how much of a brainlet is this woman?I've lived through so many of these 'dire reports' in my lifetime and guess what, nothing fucking happened.It's just as bad as the 2012 mayan prediction bullshit.
what happeng to the 30k scientist who disagree with climate.change...climate will always change .been changing for milions of years ..THAT IS NATURE
All of this is nothing but total hoax and it is all about taking our money, Wake the hell up. Stop listening to the lies.
There are far more lies than truth our planet will not likely burn even using the worst RCP8.5 model we've got 100 years before things start getting bad and I strongly disagree with taxing everyone for emissions that may or may not be happening.That said the ultimate goal is removing ourselves as much as we can from the list of things that affect the ecosystem and I do agree with that fundamentally taxing corporations and people isn't the way. I also completely agree that creating propoganda that lies to us about the future in the hope to strike fear in the hearts of the majority to comply with a govermental goals is a facet of fascism.
This woman says, not believing in climate change is like not believing in gravity. Thats quite a stupid comment as it's not the same at all. An individual can test if gravity is real just by letting go of a rock mid air. To deny that the rock falls would be to deny reality. An individual can not test if climate change is real. They can only be told by people who claim to be credible scientists on their thoughts on climate change, and have to put in many hours researching what the truth is. With all the pseudo science out there, this becomes a very daunting task. Most people don't have time to stop their daily tasks, say being a single parent, to play the role of science info checker.. If there were less or better yet, no pseudo science and pseudo scientists, or scientists with agendas that have nothing to do with science, this wouldn't be a problem. These people don't talk about this fact because they're full of it. And this lady making such a dumb statement, shows that she's not very scientific in her thoughts, which doesn't help because in teh end, most of us want to keep the Earth healthy. It's hard to do that when people like her talk nonsense.
@Tyler Andrews What he's saying is that there are climatologists who have an agenda that runs counter to the scientific evidence they collect and they're going to push their agenda anyway. And indeed he is correct. Just earlier this month what can only really be considered as a hit-list of climate scientists who are skeptical of the human impacts on climate was published in a peer reviewed paper at Nature Communications. It includes the names of 386 scientists and in no uncertain terms suggests that they need to be removed from any platform and not allowed to publish their research.This peer reviewed paper uses such garbage resources as DeSmog Blog which is run by two individuals neither of which are scientists in any way but collected a buch of information about skeptics. However according to DeSmog Blog and the paper from Nature Communications scientific accolades don't matter a damn. If you question the human impact you are a deniers and must not be allowed to spread your opinion no matter how accurate your data.
@Tyler Andrews Huh?
All she can do it cite the DIRE consequences. Dire, dire, dire.
Don’t give these fundies any ideas.
If she jumps in a volcano it may appease the climate gods.
Less self pity, more gratitude. Less envy, more gratitude. Less resentment, more gratitude. Less fear, more gratitude. Less uncertainty, more gratitude. Less anger, more gratitude. Less avarice, more gratitude. Less manipulation, more gratitude. Less blame, more gratitude. Less virtue signaling, more gratitude. Less hero worshiping, more gratitude. Less hysteria, more gratitude. Less hopelessness, more gratitude.
US preside Trump is right and he has the guts to speak clear. Global warming is the oax of the century initiated by a loser democrat politician like Al Gore. It has become a religion and whoever is skeptical is attacked by leftist media and leftist pseudo scientists eager for public funds. Like the hozone hole and the millennium bug, we are presently facing another huge fraud that is impacting our everyday life.
It's a very simple task to fool someone, it's however extremely difficult to convince those same people they've BEEN fooled. CNN are the master deceivers and happily publish inaccuracies and lies. Doesn't bother these owned and manipulated criminal apologists, ONE iota!!