When Facts Are Not Enough | Climate Change


“So I was wondering whether you thought
climate change could be an issue that could unite us all, on left and right, moving us
beyond debates about c16 to discussions at the UN Katowice next month, where perhaps
humanity might finally discover its global map of meaning?” “No.” *Laughter* “How
dare you!” *Laughter* “You have stolen my dreams!” *Laughter*
On the 23rd of September 2019, Greta Tunberu (and yes, that is how her name is pronounced
– “My name is Greta Thunberg”), gave a ‘passionate’ speech to World Leaders
at the UN. “People are suffering. People are dying.
Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all
you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
And like a forest fire in the Amazon, it spread, fast, garnering both massive support and praise.
“Greta Thunberg terrifies me, and I love her for it! She doesn’t want to inspire
us or give us hope, she wants to give us nightmares because we deserve them!
And conversely, it garnered massive backlash and criticism.
“She’s a kid. She talks nonsense. She knows little, and does less. She should be
at school, but we see this sort of attention instead, and she tells the climate alarmists
exactly what they want to hear.” But luckily, after some admittedly initial
friction, the polarising groups were able to calm down and discuss the topic amicably
and respectfully. They listened charitably to one another, and eventually, the sceptics
conceded that the science is overwhelming – human-induced climate change is a very
real issue that demands our immediate, collective attention; that not everyone who claims to
care about the climate is virtue signalling, and that we can all (easily) make small changes
to our lives that will have large results. “Take your canvas bags to the supermarket.”
And likewise, the climate activists conceded that there is a bit of a quasi religious eschatology
around their movement (“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate
change”), that their leaders applauding Greta only to then fly home IS hypocritical,
and that as wonderful and passionate as Greta is, she has been deliberately weaponised for
political gain. They all then smiled, hugged, had a good cup of tea (which was free trade,
of course, but delivered via airfreight, so that everyone was unhappy), and then they
worked together to find nuanced solutions that are considerate of everyone’s concerns
and — no, it was a shitshow, obviously! “You stole my childhood! Do what I want
you to do or else you’re evil! How do you respond to statements like that? The truth
is, you can’t respond, and of course, that’s the point.”
“Greta’s campaign has brought out a fierce backlash from misogynists, because preserving
a liveable planet has somehow become a threat to the entitlements of masculine primacy.”
“Greta Thunberg is not about the environment! She’s about aiding and abetting left-wing
neo-Marxists and their bid to dominate the Western political order.”
“This last week, led by Greta, you know… the world’s children are striking. You know,
I think there’s a– there’s an emergency that we are– it’s a race against time,
and one in which we are losing.” “To many activists it isn’t about science
or facts, policy or debate… it’s faith.” “According to a recent study, men might
even be less likely to recycle just because they’re worried people will think they’re
gay.” “Belief in something greater, something
they don’t necessarily understand, can’t explain, and won’t comprehend, like the
Judaea Christian religion.” “The world is going to end in 12 years if
we don’t address climate change.” “We’ve got 12 years to take incredibly bold action
on this crisis!” “I can’t wait for Steven King’s sequel,
Children of the Climate.” “There’s no excuse for not knowing that,
and I think that the most troubling part of it is that I don’t believe that there’s anyone
in this world that can deny science.” Oh, my Price, you and your privately educated
buddies would be surprised. But it’s not the science that I’d like to talk about
in this video – rather, I’d like to discuss the utter failure of discourse around this
topic. I’d like to explore the frustrations of, and empathise with, those who accept the
science of human-induced climate change, but have not, and likely will not, change their
behaviour accordingly. But before doing that, I’d like to quickly
make a disclaimer. In the past, when I’ve shown two or more extreme views, I’ve been
accused of committing a Middle Ground Fallacy, but as is the case with those other subjects,
is also the case here – I’m not implying that the answer is bang in the middle of these
views (it’s not), rather, I’m emphasising that the answer is SOMEWHERE between the far-right
libertarians who’re convinced that it’s their right to shit in your water supply,
and the far-left Marxists who’re also convinced that it’s their right to shit in your water…
because your water is their water. Put simply, I’m just trying to make the
discourse a little more amicable. I want people to understand the concerns of others more
accurately. I want people to be more empathetic with one another, not to demonise them. I
want to fight, effectively, against the uphill battle that is polarisation.
“Yeah, good luck, pal – that’s almost impossible– oh, you did it. Nice.”
So, with that, I’m Stephen Woodford, thanks for joining me, and this is When Facts Are
Not Enough. [Intro]
At its core, climate change (and to what extent we are contributing) is strictly a scientific
enterprise. “The absolute… absolute consensus is that
human action is leading to an increase in average temperatures.”
But the question of why we don’t accept or act according to the evidence is multifaceted
– it involves psychology, ideology, politics, education, economics, and… privilege (“Just
a routine privilege check”), and within this video I’m going to touch upon each
of these. The most significant facets (at least in my opinion) are psychological, but
we’ll address them last since they’re predicated upon other contributions, and thus
will be easier to unpack later. Given this, let’s begin with a criticism that is both
straight-forward and frequently given: that being, that many climate activists are naive.
“The fact that stopping economic development is even being advocated by some of the world’s
most privileged students (I don’t want to use the name or the word spoiled, but that’s
what many outside these facilities may think about the kind of comments we’ve heard), reveals
how far removed – how far removed this green bubble is from the harsh reality of billions
of people who are desperately trying to escape poverty.”
“This is a diverse and multifaceted world, and undergoing rapid development, and people
in Asian, in Africa, want to have the same living standards as a Swede.”
Put simply, many critics see many activists (and especially those with economic ideologies)
as dangerously naive. They see them as essentially walking into impoverished countries and saying
“Hey, you know how we had the industrial revolution, and that because of it we are
now a global super power that’s exploited you many times over? Yeah, well, you’re
not allowed the same revolution. I know, I know, you’re just trying to cook that rat
on a bonfire to feed your starving family, but you have to understand, you’re robbing
a Swedish child of her childhood, and that makes you a monster!”
This satire, of course, seems hyperbole (and to an extent it is), but it’s also not;
it is, after all, a paraphrased fusion of some of the top comments on Benny Peiser’s
speech. These critic argue that, as it stands, green energy sources are seldom viable to
impoverished people, and if we hamstring such people by taxing energy sources that are viable
to them (such as oil, gas and coal, which together constitute 87% of worldwide energy),
we stand to cause the poor massive personal and economic harm – and furthermore, we
stand to benefit the rich. “Just imagine who is reaping the hundreds
of billions that are going into renewables… its landowners. It’s the people who can afford
solar panels, solar farms, by a guess it’s those people who can afford all this green
stuff, paid by ordinary families, by poor families, who are forced to pay the rich for
their virtual signalling.” But to get back on track, the point being
is that many find climate ideologues to be naive, and whether you share this view or
not, it’s healthy to at least understand why others have this perspective.
A second criticism of note, which is in part an extension of naivety, is that climate change
a first-world, privileged problem. To be clear, those who state this are not saying that climate
change will only affect first-world countries, but rather that only affluent social classes
can afford to take the threat seriously. For example, here’s how Brendan O’Neill puts
it: “I actually think it’s morally repugnant
that in a world in which 3 billion people still live in poverty, the discussion that
is obsessing privileged, mostly white Westerners, is how can we slow down economic growth?”
Now, the goal of climate activists is not, of course, to slow down economic growth, and
Brendan knows this… he’s just employing some good old British sarcasm. And yeah, that’s
right. It’s ours. We invented sarcasm. We trademarked it. Just as we trademarked the
oil in many countri– *Beep*. *clear throat* Anyhow, and here’s Jordan
Peterson expressing the same sentiment: “Except, the data that I’ve read indicate
that if you can get the GPD of people up to about $5,000 a year, then they start caring
about the environment and the environment cleans up.”
The argument that’s being presenting, more than less, is that we need to spend money
to make money – we need to produce more CO2 to ultimately reduce our production of
CO2. Now whether you endorse this argument or not, there is indeed data to support it.
While people (including my former self) drastically underestimate how much the poor care about
the environment, the poor do statistically care less than other classes, and from a psychological
perspective, this isn’t a surprise. If one’s physiological and safety needs are not met,
one cannot afford to care about such concerns as climate change.
Again, a response might be, “Bro, green energy is actually much more viable to invest
in, especially given the long run”, and a reply to this response might be “Yes,
but brosive, the truly poor won’t have a long run if they invest in green energy”,
and then a reply to this might be “Bro, seriously, my dad will beat the absolute crap
out of your dad!” “You stole my childhood!”
But the underlining, very serious problem here, is that we don’t have time to test
the hypothesis of producing more CO2 so that we can then not produce as much CO2. The apocalyptic
claim of the world ending in 12 years is no doubt ridiculous, but if our data and interpretations
are correct (that is, if the vast majority of our scientists are correct), another 12
years of apathy may just push us beyond a safe-return. We do have to take this very
seriously, and the moment, most of us don’t. Moving on, a third criticism that given by
many critics, is that many climate activists are hypocritical – and often insufferable
so. “Lambasting the youth of the world for lassoing
themselves to these protest marches and Greta and so on, and then immediately going back
to their laptops, their iPads, their iPhones, their air-conditioned school rooms, their
bathrooms, and so on and so on– their mums take them to school in nice gas guzzling cars.”
In other words, many critics see many activists talking a good game, but when push comes to
shove, the activists themselves don’t even practice the principles that they’re trying
to force upon others. To illustrate this, take, for example, the following clip from
Earthling Ed’s channel. Ed is a vegan activist, and he recently attended a climate change
protest in London to encourage climate activists to go vegan. He began by asking them how we
can reduce our emissions. “Name some ways that we can reduce emissions.”
“Well… that’s for the government, you know, we’re just here to protest. They figured
it out, they’ve got the scientists.” And after a bit of back a forth, the activists
gave some great responses – such as cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, –
“Electric cars.” “Plastic!” “Yeah.” “Recycling! Woo! Don’t litter!” […] “Shop
from charity shops.” “Yeah.” “There we go. Yeah” “Yeah, second hand clothing
– what else?” “Turn the lights off. […] What about what we eat?” “Go vegan.”
“Just kidding! I love meat. I could never, I love food. Nah, I love the environment,
but I don’t love the environment that much.” Ed then went to explain, with more patience
than a few civilisations, that if one wants to reduce their carbon footprint, then a sure-fire
way of doing so is to reduce one’s consumption of animal products. But the activist’s response
was as indifferent as many critics are to forgoing fossil fuels.
“You think the taste of something is worth the destruction it causes?” “Yeah, I’ll
be dead one day.” “So why are you here with that logic then?” […] “We’re
on our way to Subway, actually.” “They do a vegan sandwich at Subway.” “Yeah,
but it’s not as good as the steak and cheese.” “What about the environmental impact?”
“Well, the Steak and cheese is already there, so me not eating it isn’t going to stop
them.” “But so is the plastic and the shelves and the diesel in the cars.”
Now it’s important to note, as Ed himself did, that one doesn’t need to be vegan to
care about the environment (that would be a form of purity testing, or No-True-Scotsman).
However, the attitude of these activists is hypocritical – they couldn’t come across
as more disingenuous if they wanted to. “When you’re in subway, try the vegan sandwich.
You never know. You never know.” “I will not do that, but thank you for the suggestion.”
“Well the environment is crying over that decision. See you later guys.” “If you
ever meet the environment, tell him I’m really sorry, but I love meat.”
If the activists had admitted their hypocrisy, but conveyed that doing something is better
than doing nothing, then they could be taken more seriously. But when they fervently campaign
against polluting industries and practices that they personally don’t use on a daily
basis, but callously defend polluting industries and practices that they personally do use
on a daily basis, they come across as aggregating hypocritical.
Couple this with the fact that most of them enjoy central heating, air conditioning, hot
baths, the latest clothing accessories, a new iPhone every year, Amazon Prime, and high-speed
internet, and the hypocrisy becomes insufferable. Why should someone forgo his gas-guzzling
truck (something that’s he enjoys on a daily basis), if these privileged teens won’t
forgo a bit of meat (something that they enjoy on a daily basis)? Now a reply to this, which
I think is fair, is that “These teens don’t represent the climate movement, and the fact
that critics act as if they do is no more than a strawman fallacy.” And in reply to
this, some critics will say “Bro, the same is true of their leaders, just to lesser extent
– they’re hypocrites.” And then some activists might reply, “Bro, even mum could
beat up your dad!” and we go back to shittopia. “You Stole my childhood!”
And last but not least, let’s talk psychology. The YouTube channel It’s Okay to be Smart,
has an excellent video dedicated to this very topic, titled Why People Don’t Believe in
Climate Science” – and honestly, I could just link to that and be done with this video,
but I want to emphasis many of the same points and add a few of my own.
Al Gore famously titled his 2006 climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and in
my opinion, it’s a perfect title. Climate change is an inconvenient true because we
are utterly unequipped to confront it. We evolved on the planes of Africa, dealing with
immediate, personal threats, and so we are not hard-wired to deal with threats that we
ourselves won’t endure. We are, in fact, wired to dismiss these threats – we are
wired for hyperbolic discounting. As George Marshall, Daniel Kahneman, and many
others have emphasised, in our desire of avoid the anxiety that climate change generates,
“We actively conspire with each other, and mobilize our own biases to keep it perpetually
in the background.” Our optimism bias comforts us with the delusion
that climate change won’t affect us or our progeny, just others. Our tribalistic tendencies
(our need for social acceptance) warn us not to rock the boat and risk ostracisation. Our
bias toward the status quo, and fear of change, prevents us from innovation. And to protect
our cherished ideologies, we so easily endorse headlines that confirm our presuppositions,
and demonise and conflate those you don’t. Or as Joe Hanson puts it:
“Climate change is almost the perfect problem. We’ve gotta do something about it, but every
one of its attributes goes against our psychology. It’s like that black cloud from lost. It
has no identity, no home, no single cause, and no single solution. It’s about more
than science. It involved economics, morals, human rights, ideology, technology… it’s
really hard.” Anyhow, in conclusion, my dad would definitely
beat up your dad! Childish humour aside, I hope that whatever your views on climate change
are, and the politics that surround it, you walk away from this video with a bit more
empathy for those who don’t share your views. Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s are nutters
on both sides… well, more on one side than the other (and I’ll let your cognitive bias
assume which I’m referring to), and yes, these people are pretty much untouchable.
They’re convinced, and that’s that. They’re essentially variations of the bible-bashers
who proudly state that “If the bible says it’s so, it’s so.”
But most people are not like that – and in this day and age of echochambers and outrage,
we are in desperate need of amicable discourse, and without it, we may all be in trouble.
With that, I’m Stephen Woodford, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and
an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported
the channel via other means.

Comments 73

  • Two things: 1) I love my American friends, but I'll spell it out for you: Me saying that the British invented sarcasm, is sarcasm… but not really. And 2) As of this moment, this video has been flagged as "Not suitable for most advertisers" (which means it's pretty much demonetized). Hopefully a manual review from YouTube will fix this (it often does), but if you'd like to support someone trying to combat polarisation, it would be warmly welcome (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules

  • The moment Brian cox spoke I was sold, but if you disagree don’t worry your an idiot and won’t be reading this.

  • Amazing job dismantling both sides. In my opinion, the solution resides in the free market. There are lots of money to be made cleaning the planet. I think it can be very profitable to get rid of the plastic in the oceans. Also, you just need one inventor and one entrepreneur to come up with a more efficient and cheaper energy source than oil and gas. Now, the only way for this to happen is with lots of capital which is only possible to obtain through free market forces. I'm barely scratching the surface. We could ask ourselves what if we dont invent the neccessary technology in time? What of we are too late? Maybe Nuclear energy?

  • Hey fuckface.. human induced climate change is not supported by enough evidence

  • The right wing only cares about money and power. Nothing else matters

  • Atomic energy is the answer?

  • I feel that in your first two points you're grossly misrepresenting the position that most of the climate activist have, they are not as naive as you portrait them using the narrative of very questionable people; they know that the countries that need to slow down and change more urgently are not the poor countries but the wealthy and powerful nations in the world, that the poor countries are not responsible for this emergency, a person in the US emits up to 150 times more greenhouse gases than a person in a poor country in Africa. They know that we can't keep these privileges and lifestyle if we want a heathy planet in the future.
    And I find very petty and misdirecting to delegitimize someone's concerns, ideas and actions just because they live in this less than perfect world where just by being part of the society we are constantly engaged in practices or using products with very questionable moral background, supply chain and ecological impact. It's almost inevitable but we can try to minimize as much as possible and practicable while we work for a better future world. Listen and discus what they are saying not what shoes they are wearing.

  • A Conversation with an Atheist:

    Me: everyone in the world is a sinner, sin is whenever you’re not loving God with all your heart and all your might and whenever you’re not loving your neighbor as yourself, so when you lust after flesh your sinning, when you think you’re better than someone else you’re sinning, this is what most atheists struggle with is accepting that they are sinners and why they refuse God, but if you trust in God he will wash away your sins, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop sinning it just means you realize how bad sin is, may you trust in God.everyone thinks that Christianity is about being perfect but that’s not it at all, Christianity is admitting that we’re not perfect and realizing that we need Gods mercy so that we can be worthy, you cannot buy your way to heaven and you cannot earn your way to heaven that’s not what God wants, he wants us to be in a relationship with him which most people are not willing to do.

    Atheist: if you truly believe perhaps reread matthew 7 "do not judge or you too shall be judged" you are not God. You are not permitted to call others out on their sin, but rather lead through your own action and call others to God through love. God speaks through love, not condemnation and insults.

    Me: I am judged daily by myself and my God because I am a wretched sinner who is a slave to sin for I sin daily, I am not worthy of salvation but through Gods Grace and mercy I have been given it, not because I am good, on the contrary because I admit that I am not good and I acknowledge that it is nothing I have done to save me but only through Gods sacrifice in Christ Jesus am I saved, there’s nothing special about me, you can have eternal security as well, we’re all sinners and only by Grace through faith are we saved

    Atheist: Why would God make a gay man, if he doesn't like to men living their love?

    I understand your point that it is the gay mans choice to act upon feelings for another man, which you consider sinfull. But why would God give one man romantic/sexual feelings for another man, and not allow them to be happy together? Yes beeing together is a choice. But having theese feelings is not a choice. 'comiting' homosexual acts is a choice, but beeing homosexual is not.

    Homosexuality is not defined by actions, it is defined by feelings. You don't have control over your feelings. Why would God purpusfully give you feelings, that you are not allowed to follow? You know how much it hurts loving someone, but not beeing able to be in a relationship with said person.

    Why would God want to hurt us? God loves us. And he wants us to be happy. It doesn't make sense to think God doesnt allow homosexual acts/ homosexuality. Love is the power of God. Not hate. And if you don't believe in the love of God, I don't see why you could call yourself christian.

    Christians follow the teachings of jesus christ, the manifestation of Gods love for mankind.

    Me: we chose to have these feelings when we chose sin over a relationship with God, tell me what separates us from God? It’s sin, God is our father and he gave us a choice, live with him in heaven or eat from the tree of knowledge, the tree of knowledge led us to decide what is righteousness and what is sin, but of course because our hearts deceive us we choose sin everytime, but because God loves us he'll let us fail everytime, he won’t force his righteousness on us but we CAN be free from sin, we just have to turn to God and what he did for us by his sacrifice on the cross through Jesus Christ frees us from sin so that our flesh might die to sin and our spirits be saved from it,the easiest answer to this is how would we ever know sin if we lived in a Holy world? we cannot and that’s why we fell because we wanted to choose right from wrong when we ate from the tree of knowledge so God is letting us choose here on earth, and when it’s all done we can choose to mend our relationship with God by believing in his sacrifice and acknowledging our faults or we can choose to stay separated from God and he will not violate that decision either, sin isn’t the issue, we are all inherently slaves to sin, refusing to admit we are sinners and acknowledging it is our issue, no one is perfect only God is we are all struggling with our own sin.

  • "We've had a revolution, and you can't have one"
    More like, Westerners found another way to screw mankind over in the worst way possible. We should definitely not do it anymore/ again.

  • There are about 100 companies which cause about 70% of CO2 emissions; what if we just targeted those? What if individual action and accusations of hypocrisy are entirely spurious? What if all serious climate activists are talking about those 100 companies and the governments who can regulate them, not individuals?

    Individual action is a massive straw man and not at issue. It has no place in a serious discussion.

  • LOL you are mangling her last name badly … it's always funny to listen to … as I understand it might be hard to hear how bad it's mangled if you do not use those sounds normally.
    Tenbuu. It's Tuunbeurgh (best I could come up with in 5 seconds).

  • We will not make. We have past many tipping points as it's not linear. Civilization will begin to collapse in a decade or two and by 2050 civilization will probably be gone.

  • For reasons suggested, I was expecting to hate this from the thumbnail and the channel name, but it actually was the rational take it claimed to be. A pleasant surprise well done. My dad could still beat up your dad though, just fyi.

  • Inconsequential waffle.

  • It's the whole attitude of some vegans towards others – meat eaters – that just doesnt fit well with me. It's almost as if they have a "I am a more virtuous person than you and everything about me is good" persona. It's almost religious in some sort of way.

  • More than the climate is changing. I don't have much hope for our next two or three centuries. The future – as always – belongs to the adaptive.

  • This guy is spot on . . . .

  • Is there more I could do (I do recycle, but I still eat meat and own a private, non-electric/hybrid car)? Yup. However, we need systemic change to really have a chance; the most me by myself could do was buy our species a few extra seconds.

  • The world will end in 10 years statement which is lambasted constantly seems more of a misrepresentation of a statement from the IPCC report, which claimed that 10 years is the window of opportunity we have to meaningfully address the climate change issue before we run the risk of catastrophic effects and possible hothouse earth feedback loops.

    Statements like the one made By AOC seemed to me to hyperbolize the IPCC statrment as a means to wake the public up to the fact that change needs to happen now.

  • How dare you, Sweden?! How dare you have the lowest CO2 emissions of any developed country?! (It's okay, China, you can keep burning coal.)

  • Another 12 years might push us past the limit? that's what was being said 12 years ago.? There are no real indicators we are suffering a global catastrophe… What we are seeing is fairly routine in the history of the world..So a few species go extinct, that's our population growth and habitat loss…Nothing to do with global warming.

  • Facts and Logic, dude.

  • sadly, in actuality, climate change is very slow and boring, so a lot of people don’t care or don’t even believe in it.

  • I paused the vid to say this so I'm not sure if you mention it. The sharpest focus should be on the military and the 100 companies that produce the most pollution. The rest of us will naturally fall in line if we shut that shit down, y'know?

  • As an American and a Marxist, I must say, your understanding of Marx is exemplary. As a Brit and milquetoast liberal, you must already know, I'm being really fucking sarcastic when I say that… 😉

    One of your hypothetical "rational responses" to the debate is "to make a few personal changes" that would have far-reaching impacts. That is not rational. It betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. There is absolutely nothing that we can do as individuals (eg recycle, shorter showers, bike to work, or even eating no animals products) that will prevent ecological collapse. It would require a discussion much longer than I care to type or you'd probably care to read, so I'll just state it a la Stalin authoritarian style….better yet…I'll just shit the solution into your water supply…anything short of abolishing the capitalist mode of production, and the social relations on which it rests, is incapable of ending the death march to an uninhabitable planet. There is a logic that operates within any social organism that reproduces itself over time. The logic of capital is one self-expansion. No nice and civil conversation or piece of legislation by a bourgeois parliament is capable of reversing this logic. Something a little more, what's the word, revolutionary is in order. You have to break out of the bourgeois horizon in order to see the quixotic nature of your perspective and the rational, materialist one of the Marxists…

    …and I'd be remiss…the idea that an activist is hypocritical for using an iphone, having ac, or taking hot shower is positively irrational. Activists do not get to snap their fingers and have the world change. They are born into a world, with a mode of production, that operates under certain conditions beyond their control. They do not have any other choice but to live in the world they were given while they are attempting to change it. That is not be hypocritical. According to your "logic," a fat person is a hypocrite for going on a diet while being fat….oh the hypocrisy!!!

  • Climate Change is a fraud

  • When we hear the environmental minister in India say the horrifyingly polluted Ganges is a god so it will clean itself, we can see that we're up against forces that are impossible to get through.

  • What about less meat?
    Less of everything :O
    Make less humans 😀

  • The U.S. military is one of our largest contributors to climate change. And they are aware of this fact.

    War is the business they dont want to slow down. Yet right wing politicians claim its lefty lies.
    All while having stock in weapons manufacturing.

  • JBP actually changed his mind on climate change. Watching his earlier lectures he thought humans had a massive impact, especially cars.
    But as he went along he ended it in the ”I’m not so sure we have anything to do with it”.

  • Why don't we start by forcing big company unlocking their devices bootloader and publish the kernel source for those devices so people can upgrade the and keep them updated so people won't have to change those said devices every year or two.

    Or, just keep updating the devices for at least 5 years.

  • The climate is always changing and it has very little to nothing to do with man made CO2 emissions. Consensus? Consensus on what? Who cares. The vast majority of scientists are wrong about any given topic and especially something as complex as the climate. I'll start believing that climate scientists can predict the climate in 10 to 50 years with their computer models after they figure out how to predict what the climate will be in 2 weeks. What a joke. Burn that beautiful fossil fuel baby and love it! Life is good. Ignore climate retards and enjoy the fruits of modern civilization. You don't like it? Suck my balls, bitches!

  • According to the IPCC humans produce 6 billion giga tonnes of co2, ants 10 billion giga tonnes, the sea around 600 billion giga tonnes, so even if co2 was the driving force behind temperature rises which its not, humans are not even the main factor lol. Learn about the Milankovich cycles

  • Polarization- hmmm… Nope, sorry I'm all for it. Junk science, leftist propaganda, melodrama from abused kids on one side – skepticism, experimental science, historical data and rational debate on the other. I know which side I choose.

  • In 5 billion or so years the sun will go red giant on us and well that’s the end of that! Learn to stop worrying and love the steak!

  • Regardless of what your views are about climate change I think we can all universally agree with one point. We as a species need to do a lot more to move away from burning fossil fuels for power to both help secure a cleaner future and hopefully take away power from the corrupt and greedy oil and gas industry.

  • whilst I agree 100% that we should all try to empathise with positions we do not always agree with. I think the assertion you make around 9.50 regarding Brendan O Neill is not true, that the aim of enrironmental activists is not to slow down economic growth, everything I have seen and heard over the last 10 years would suggest that that is the aim as they think economic growth uses resources and is envonmentally damaging.

  • They will turn the third world into a giant "Climate Camp"

  • Did that guy say "virtual signaling"?

  • Here is how you can tell the movement is a joke:
    1) Against nuclear. If they are against nuclear which is the cleanest and best source of energy we have then they are not serious about the problem.
    2) Pro-wind: Wind is not an effective energy source
    3) Pro-solar: Solar is an incredibly dirty way of producing energy.
    4) Not understanding carbon. If carbon is truly the problem we have relatively cheap technology that can capture it from the air. CO2 is actually one of the reasons for the greening of our world. Our planet based on the science is getting greener.
    5) Socialist: If the movement promotes socialism then it isn't about making the world greener but it is about control and transferring of wealth. Look at the track record of socialist countries on the environment. It is horrible. Socialist nations often are the worst polluters.
    6) Pro-open borders: If the movement also supports open borders then it doesn't understand that you are moving people from countries where they have a very small carbon footprint to having a much larger foot print. If a person comes from India to the US for example they will increase their carbon footprint by 20x. So if you are honest then you need to be against any immigration.
    7) Mention the consensus of scientists: If they mention, 98% of scientists agree stats, then they are not serious because they are just spewing out long debunked talking points. If they were serious they would have done the real research into the topic and know what actual scientists are saying.
    8) If they don't mention India or China: India and China are the largest sources of CO2 emissions and pollution. Any solution that doesn't address them isn't sincere.

  • wind turbines are problematic and only last for 15 to 20 years, if climate change is real they won't save us, the whole thing is a massive scam, the science is weaponized for a war on climate, NASA have wind turbines proudly displayed under "Solutions", this proves that their integrity can not be trusted

  • People are not wired to spot controlled opposition, they are so desperate to feel empowered and to be part of a community that they get sucked into this bullshit

  • I believed in this bullshit myself for 25 years

  • This video is nothing short of climate alarmist gaslighting. All science is based on skepticism. People should be questioning whether models used to collect the data are accurate especially when historical claims and predictions from climate alarmists have been proven to be false. Secondly, people should seriously question whether "the vast majority" of scientists believe that man is the driving force behind climate change. Cherry-picked polls and debunked research by citizen scientists (activists) does not prove anything. There are literally tens of thousands of scientists who do not support this notion and their voices are being silenced by the same sorts of leftist nutjobs that believe everyone else is a Nazi. 😀

  • As a guy who has t gone a lot into research, this is the argument. Gov paid scientists: climate change is real. Private funded scientists: climate change is bs. Who do we Beleive ?

  • I find the clip from Russia Today to be the most accurate of them all: though it's still dismissing all activism as faith based and that's certainly not true, it is also true that most people part taking in activism really are doing it in good faith without completely grasping the details of the problem they're trying to solve.

    However this is really something that seems to me as an unsolvable problem of activism itself: it's unreasonable to expect anyone to be an expert on every subject, what activism ultimately does is indeed convincing people to trust an incomplete source, for a cause that they will necessarily never understand completely.

    So, is activism bad for this? Perhaps it's just the only tool we can use to create large scale movements, then again it does spread exactly like religious dogma.

  • Climate has always changed.

  • my man, the voice of reason, once more, the one true minority

  • Greta Thunberg is a Satanic devil worshipper who will be used as a blood sacrifice to George Soros.

  • Would it be better to move to alternative energies now and not wait until we are forced? Sure, but there is no doomsday scenario in which we pollute the planet so much it becomes inhospitable. That is alarmist hyperbole and hysteria.

    Even if we burnt all the oil that is left. The effect on climate would be insignificant on a global scale. Nature will kick in and regulate as it already does right now by increased tree growth and algae. Trees and algae will take that carbon back out of the air and we go back to normal. It will not even be noticeable in the grand scheme of things. We are insignificant compared to Nature.

  • Haven’t watch one of your videos for like a year. You are making a far more balanced point than you were previously. Keep it up.

  • "Far left marxist that also want to shit in your water, because they are convinced that your water is their water"
    I know this is about climate Change, but this is ridiculous. Please look up the difference between private and personal property in marxist theory.

  • 6:50 Classic. "I don't want to use the name 'spoiled' but…"

    "I'm not calling you a twat, but…"

  • Long live big brother, LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!

  • When facts are not enough… theres beer.

  • How very scientific of you to dismiss activists like Greta and AOC as Extreme Leftist Marxists, without any solid evidence. These activists are basing their rhetoric on actual up to date scientific research, which shows how little time we have left before an imminent worldwide catastrophe. I’m tired of Moderate Centrists who always prefer the status quo

  • My Science Teacher doesn't believe in climate change. I think he believes it exists, but he said the world has been through Ace ages etc. Climate Change is natural and man can't have much effect on it.

  • Humanity needs to focus on cleaning up pollution on the planet, NOT throwing money at the weather…

  • Does anybody actually believe that we only have 12 years left until the literal end? Like, who believes that bs?
    And what I mean by that is, does anybody who says "we only have 12 years left" not understand that it's a hyperbolic statement meant to emphasize the fact that if we don't make serious change within 12 years shits going to get a lot worse? Because in my experience, people aren't that stupid. So why the flying fuck are conservatives wasting everybody's time claiming that anyone who says that means it literally? Like, is this fucking pre-k? Do we need to spell shit out letter by fucking letter for you people? Is this really that difficult to grasp? Nobody who is worth replying to, and who says the words "we only have 12 years left" is saying that the human race will be extinct In 12 years. Absolutely nobody, who is right in there mind, is stupid enough to think that that's what that statement means. So why are people acting like that's what's being said?

    So ill do it. Ill spell it out for anyone who does get the concept of being hyperbolic to stress a point and its importance. When Aoc, and most people who say the exact words: "we only have 12 years left". They do not fucking mean to say: "humans are going to be extinct and literally dead in 12 years". What they mean when they say that phrase is literally: "if we don't take serious action within 12 years, shit is going to get a lot worse." Which is literally exactly what the scientists who popularized the phrase are saying. There, it's been spelled out. Now let's all pull our heads out of our asses, nobody literally thinks we'll all be dead in 12 years, except most Christians, who tend to think the end is always within the next 12 years.

  • people should be reminded, this is a facts battle.
    when you bring feelings to a facts battle your gonna lose. climate change is supported by facts and we should stick to the facts when debating.
    saying "the world will end in 12 years" is eyecatching and straight forward, but that has downsides as well. because the world will not end in 12 years, it will 'just' see one of the first major peaks in some of the predicted negative effects of climate change. but thats not as attention grabbing as "end of the world". its not incorrect (since 'the world as we know it' will 'end'), but the opposing sides then use "world end" literally and accuse them of being alarmist.
    facts are our armor and weapons. feelings can get past our fact based armour and hurt, but this is a facts battle, and as long as it stays that way your facts will hurt them far more than their feelings can. only when you engage their feelings with your feelings will it become a feelings battle and all your facts will lose weight.

  • Middle ground fallacy, hmm never heard that term before.

    Always thought 101 emphasized that at least to a material concept.

    Understanding corperate, political, and wealthy cult dark wisdoms is vital to the win.

    Who's childhood havnt been stolen. Look at tha back peel of Genesis. Base division in family, friends, and society.

    In short god and lucifer fought and the pedo serpent took it all while few broke away to safety. Eden boom long version I'm on the highest spiritual position.

    Vegans behavioral errors is based on omnivore base nature in naturalism. This alters and starves a state of the human self. You can use it for a root drill system.

    When any of you activists set up an acid bds chaos death white root drill system that can take itself to the extremes unto 1 conciousness absolute self implosion. Setting up controlled behavioral patterns in the circulation of the 1 conciousness bomb to restore memory over time grounding 1 conciousness.

    Sum up as I am the absolute own of all white, black, and indigenous protest by blood, soul, and right of the works of fate. Check the back I'm the Boss

  • Agree with this completely. I couldn't even watch Greta's hammy performance. And I'm angry that so many are using her as a beacon for…anything, really. But I'm just as angry for the fact that if she were speaking this way about Jesus, or the Kurds in Syria, the right wing would be hoisting her on their shoulders in exactly the same way. Climate change has NEVER been discussed in the way it should be, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

  • It was a good attempt to pronounce Thunberg, but it wasn't quite there. Nordics would have difficulties to figure out what the last part was without context.

    You pronounced it something like Thenberry, but the actual pronunciation is something like /Ty:nbæri/. (Just like she said.) Swedish pronunciation of "u" is often closer to English … hm … can't think of a word in English with that sound. Dune! The "u" in Dune is somewhat similar to "u" in Swedish. At least the beginning sound before it transforms in to "u". If I would write dune so that a Swedish person could phonetically read it and it sounds English, I would write it "Dyoon".

    The "e" in berg (lit. mountain) is pronounced similarly to the "a" in the English word "bad", except shorter. I suppose in pronunciation text it's the Danish/Norwegian ae letter, æ. (Not sure since I don't actually know how to write that pronunciation text with weird characters.) And the Swedish "g" is closer to "j" in English – well, Swedish "g" is like the English soft g, so the ending, "rg" is closer to "rj".

    But it was a good attempt for a non-Nordic person.

  • It's my opinion that the solution to climate change will be bottom up. Education.
    Educate people about the small things they can do to help reduce the harm we do to the planet.
    Yes, energy solutions will eventually be the way forward, but it would only take small changes from everyone to make big differences.

  • You can never convince us of of the science behind climate change because there is no definitive science on climate change. Come back to this comment in 20 years when none of your models have proven true. I'd love to see your excuses then.

  • If the science is so overwealming, why do they act like con men about it?

  • Thanks for this less bias than usual talk about climate change.
    I've been starting to make small changes in my life to help reduce climate change.
    After watching this, I'm considering going meat free on Mondays. It's only a small step, but if we could encourage the world to make small changes like this, it would make a large difference

  • I wonder if any of these zelots considered what their ideal co2 levels are or have any idea that below 200 ppm plats begin to die!

  • It's the 40 years of fear mongering and crying wolf about the environment that makes us not take that shit seriously… That and the insane amount of corruption surrounding those policies… Government has a better chance of convincing me that the terrorists they created over there are a good reason to change the laws over here…

  • Al Gore… Hahahahaha THE BIGGEST CLIMATE HYPOCRITE THERE IS! I didn't take his bullshit seriously because he spits a good game and then ignores his own advice in his daily life. You can't tel me I need my Climate Control up or down a degree when he refuses to put solar panels on his many mansions he keeps climate controlled… Bringing him up does more harm for your cause than good.

  • The bottom line is we are fucked

  • Greta Thunberg actually advocates for taking into account climate justice, like a lot, i.e. the countries that can afford to do more should do more. So I don't understand why some people are accusing her as being the naive affluent Swedish girl living in the green bubble not knowing the suffering of the poor, because she does. She also talks about how climate change will affect the poor communities more adversely than rich ones.

    It is usually the right who gets triggered when they are told that rich countries should do more for the environment because they can afford to. Maybe even call he whole thing a Hoax to slow down the west.

  • What about the fact that the top 100 companies are emitting 71% of the greenhouse gases ?

  • The worshipping of sun gods never ended, it just got repackaged.
    Satanism has always been disguised as the worship of the creation over the Creator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *