@@davidboult4143 .. Exactly. I understand it as being ‘overall’. As in, nothing in and nothing out. Overall carbon the same - Which is meaningless. We all did the Carbon cycle at school - The same amount of carbon in the world going round and round over millions of years.
Much like “COVID”, we have overactive “imaginations”, both respiratory disease and climate exist, but we seem to have turned them into some sort of “bogey-man”……
I think if we are serious about net zero then a top down approach is the way to go. No private jets, no superyachts, two cars only, no multiple residences etc. They talk of a trickle down effect so let us put it to use here.
the biggest change we need is the concept that people need to do/manufacture something to be paid a wage; a significant section of all jobs are nothing but a box ticking exercise, a waste of energy and generation of waste material (plastic toys come to mind; but also "work" in many government departments); the planet and the poeple on it would live better if these jobs were not done in the first place capitalism as it exists now, is extremely wasteful
@@jaytsecanThe profit incentive is not the problem: it represents the creation of value. The problem is socio-political. It is political elites captured by ideology whose consequences they barely understand, and a broader spiritual malaise in society in which power is the only thing held to be of value.
Did capitalism demand Human Resources? Much of these make work schemes are to provide something for women to do as a social engineering egalitarian project. Same for universities, massive increase in admin in NHS and gov.
I now live in the US and have lived in Asia. In general, I am shocked about the amount of propaganda in the UK media and the level of groupthink that exists. Orwell would have been impressed. When I return to the UK most people seem to have been brainwashed, especially on net zero. I have developed and financed energy projects in Europe, North America, and Asia. Net zero makes no sense for the UK. It produces less than 1% of global CO2, whatever Britain does makes no difference, net zero will just make ordinary people poorer. Elites can be replaced, I was in Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall down and spoke to ex-communists who were once in powerful positions. John Gray is probably right, the people could rebel, if they conclude that the people making the decisions are clowns.
The earth will be warming, and that will be extremely expensive. However, we can still limit the warming (e.g. by using nuclear energy) and reduce not only suffering but also economic damage. It doesn't matter what share of CO2 is produced by the UK, because every country has to do their bit.
It's getting closer .... the mood has changed drastically over the last few years as the trckle of people beginning to investigate all the claims more deeply has now surged as they are being touched by the reality of how their lives will be impoverished and freedoms curtailed. I know from taking the issue to my local council several years ago, none of them had any inkling of what is in store...they do now, meeting people in the community who surprise me by their knowledge. It is building and will only get bigger
Imagine all that money going towards strengthening public services, schools, hospitals... cleaning our waters, getting our kids into science, building houses, upgrade houses to make them more energy efficient, invest in technologies and innovation etc... but nooooo ...
Those things have been going on since the second world war! I didn't get the impression he was against any of that. Rather, he specifically referred to the huge investment that is ongoing in renewables and EVs without honest consideration of their underlying resource demands. He also suggested that a realisation was coming that would be hard to accept for those wedded to the current paradigm.
In Germany, the climate debate has quasi-religious overtones. This is very difficult to bear, because any criticism of the existing climate models is interpreted as a “denial” of climate change. Young people stick to main roads and demand 100 km/h speed limits and free train tickets. Politics reacts as if under hypnosis and without pragmatism. Most people do not question the obviously contradictory political decisions, such as the shutdown of the nuclear power plants. The people who are skeptical only express their opinions in secret. The social climate is becoming more and more complicated and difficult because the freedom to express one's opinion officially exists but leads to social exclusion.
I had a German academic Freind of many years here in UK and when I simply pointed out a few inconsistencies, she got upset and called me a naz.i I was shocked, it was a few years ago. I always knew she was an ideological thinker. I'm sorry to say but I have learned over the years that ideological thinking is Germany's malady. I really don't think your country has truly learned anything from your country's past. Creating concepts and theorising seriously blocks perception. As a nation you guys need to turn to God.
Thank you for sharing Germany's social climate surrounding the climate change debate. Much appreciated. I live in the USA and it is pretty much the same in California. And I have family in Canada and it is very much the same. I think a very small percentage of the population, anywhere, believe that the climate is not changing, perhaps even rapidly. But I think we all need to continue to express our opinion, even if it means we will be excluded of some of our social circles. This way, the "fringe" society will be able to assemble and debate and not be excluded anymore.
Same..I'm worried about our water, plastic pollution etc. The planet will do what it does about climate...but if they carry on this net zero stuff, it will struggle I fear.
As a child in the 80's they preached that cars spew out pollution. Fuel injection and computer engine management reduced that significantly. So they changed to a new demon, CO2.
As Mark Mills has pointed out, the Green movement paid no attention to the extreme environmental damage that almost certainly will result from mining the raw materials that are mandatory to achieve “net zero” and the massive amount of GHG that will (not might) be emitted from processing and refining. Plus, no plan for necessary recycling, which also will have environmental consequences. In other words, “net zero” is an aspiration with neither plan nor consideration of risk. It depends almost totally on the human element known as Hopeium.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 I suggest that the goal of the smart Greenies (there are a few, at the top) is not to switch us to all electric vehicles but to eliminate personal transportation. Similarly, they don’t want a broad range of energy sources, they want one they can control (electricity, via what will be their grid). It’s about total control. Food (no more meat), energy, transportation, government crypto, education, the media, healthcare, even your child’s “choice” of gender: that’s every aspect of your life except the air you breathe. That’s the Green vision.
very true. and i appreciate you laying that out without then jumping to the conclusion that climate change is therefore exaggerated / a hoax / a global elite conspiracy. Because it's still there! So what to do then? Max nuclear, max hydropower, max carbon capture, max investment in scaling new technologies (fusion, direct air capture)... gas as bridge, scaled geoengineering trials. success is not guaranteed of course. but to say the problem doesnt exist because i can't think of a way to solve it (and the people who bang on about it are *so* annoying!) just isn't grown up.
It’s a cope, the idea we can have advanced liberal democracy and endless consumption witho it paying a price. Total delusion, as energy cannot be created from nothing.
Each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaces less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity (York, 2012). Moreover, the world has never transitioned to a low energy return on investment. We still use large amounts of biomass. Let that sink in!
Interestingly, climate policies always enrich someone of some groups. It's simply a wealth transfer. Everyone has to contribute their own money to state budgets whether they like it or not and then few companies are benefiting from this money which is given away by politicians.
@@johnsawdonify yet "climate emergency" "solutions" are all based on additional taxes or fees - so, unlike "favoring fossil fuels" everyone has to pay for it, whether they like it or not. It's extorting everyone to benefit few.
@@johnsawdonifynot those ghaaarstly fossil fuels that power our civilisation.... Yes those gas turbines and coal fired plants that have to be powered as back up, because "renewables" don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.
They want to eradicate people from the planet. We're the carbon they want to reduce. That's why they brainwash kids into believing human life worth is nothing and animals have more value
I think he's dead accurate about the social revolt that's coming regarding the regulations imposed in the name of climate change. He's also correct about the proposed solutions to climate change - they won't work and cannot work. But I think he's dead wrong about the consequences of climate change. Since the first Earth Day in 1970 every single prophesy of disaster produced by self-proclaimed experts has turned out to be wrong. Despite all their doom & gloom, humanity has never been better fed, housed, clothed and educated. Amusingly the extra CO2 has boosted plant growth by about 15% and that is helping feed us.
Where is the data to support that humanity is better fed, housed, clothed and educated? On the contrary I'd argue that we are worse fed than ever, obesity, toxic food and forever chemicals are global epidemics. Much of the built environment is cheap concrete built to last a few decades at most, nothing is built to stand for millennia like the buildings of Rome. Much of the clothing industry is through slave and child labor. What qualifies as education is highly debatable. "Since the first Earth Day in 1970 every single prophesy of disaster produced by self-proclaimed experts has turned out to be wrong" Sure, not every prophesy comes true but experts have been proclaiming for a long time now that temperature will rise and that we will have more frequent disasters, which has occurred, so this is just a factually false statement. "Amusingly the extra CO2 has boosted plant growth by about 15% and that is helping feed us." Cite a source for this please. It is researched that the planet is greening due to extra CO2 as well as climate change, but your exact figure of 15% is something that I cannot find. How does this in any way cover for increasing extreme weather events, droughts, heat waves, floods, sea level rise, and ocean acidification which will continue the massive extinction event that we are currently living through?
Not sure he's correct at the beginning there. Lovelock originally predicted billions of deaths and the small remnants of humanity surviving only by moving to the Arctic. In an interview in 2012, a telephone interview with MSNBC, he said, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
The net zero approach is tragic. We should focus on preserving what is left of the Amazon rainforest. I am convinced that has infinite more influence on the climate. I have been kind of an environmentalist and did my share of not poluting the earth within what is possible. But now I think: I don't want to be a part of this lunacy.
Anything initiated by the government should be independently analysed. 1, All government policy on this subject is to tax you more and create the illusion of doom. 2, No government policy gives the people money. 3, The climate is always changing but the one argument you will not hear about is population. Less people, less demand on resourses, not rocket science. 4, Wind farms cost, electric vehicle infrastructure costs. 5, No CO2 no food. The only reason there is life on earth is because of CO2. 6, The most sensible route to net zero, if that is the plan, is to create something that stores immence amounts of CO2 and returns oxygen as a by product and that is to plant forests, mixed native species. This of course does not earn the corrupt government back handers from solar and wind organisations. 7, Dr Patrick moore and some of his independant scholars state that there is a derth of CO2 but they are never consulted. 8, The only purpose of government is to win power over the people because it is lucrative, period. They have not got your best interests at heart, that is an illusion.
It’s not always easy to agree with Gray, but he is always worth listening to and reflecting on your own views and beliefs. In that alone there is usually something to learn. But he’s often right too.
We have to train ourselves to listen to what other people with other perspectives say. We must dare to wear other glasses, not necessarily to change our mind but to evolve our own thinking. Everyone is wrong about something. I'm rather sure I'm right here though.
Mao's great leap forward ( no tech and no infrastructure ) and his cultural revolution ( mobilization of the ignorant to dominate the debate and vandalism ) combined
We are expecting to reverse our energy sources that have developed over thousands of years to new very weak sources all in 30 years. We have 80% in fossil. We cannot replace that with renewables EVER. NUCLEAR IS ONE WAY, BUT RENEWABLES ARE INTERMITTENT SO BACKUP IS NEEDED FOR SECURITY.THAT CAN ONLY BE FOSSIL OR NUCLEAR FOR ENERGY SECURITY.
John Gray tells us that James Lovelock said that "climate science underestimates the changes in the climate". In a strong sense, there's no such thing as Climate Science if we treat it as a Platonic form or if we personify it. Instead, climate science is made up of around a dozen separate scientific disciplines, many institutions, many university departments, many journals and numerous scientists. Thus, it hardly makes to say, "Climate sciences says..." or "Climate science underestimates...".... These things can justifiably be said about certain very precise and circumscribed scientific disciplines, but not "climate science" - which was hardly referred to at all until the 1970s or even later than that.
@@andreimustata5922 My "point" is in my reply. I can copy and paste it again, and you can read it again. I'm not sure of the point of your own response.
@@paulaustinmurphy I asked you if you would have felt any different if it would have been said "scientists who study climate say". The fact that the people studying climate could have many different backgrounds seems irrelevant to his points.
@@andreimustata5922 What!? You think that my point was that "the people studying climate could have many different backgrounds"? Really? He was personifying science. He was treating as if it were a single person with a single view. Do I really need to repeat myself? My point is that people keep on talking about "THE Science" when they mean particular scientists who say things that they agree with. It's a means of making their own stance seem objective, unbiased and scientific. As it is, who says that even most scientists (not THE Science) say that the rate of climate change has been underestimated. If anything, many argue that the problem is "alarmism" - over estimating the change.
The electoral reform needed is an informed electorate, with public, informed discussions to determine the issues and the possible solutions. The European countries have very varied methods of electing representatives, yet they have all produced dysfunctional, self destructive governments and local authorities, so rearranging the deckchairs won't solve anything.
You know I don't think they're self destructive. At least not wittingly. I think what's more likely is they have a US dollar account somewhere out there with a lot of zeros and they put their own interests before the interests of the electorate. Some call this corruption but you could go as far as to say it's downright treason. There are other causes and reasons that explain the destructive behaviour but I think maybe the ockham's razor principle above is the biggest one in the causal spectrum here.
People dont elect anyone anymore. Elites do using their media propaganda machine. Sure you can vote, but the majority of the voting population isnt intelligent enough to see thru propaganda and will vote whatever the TV tells them to. Politicians are not elected anymore, not really in like 95% of cases, they are selected and the voting is just a fascade or "coronation" ceremony.
The Swiss model works well enough at all levels. But it involves true democracy, any citizen can get the law changed if he follows the process. So of course, we didn't vote to join the EU as that would have been the last time we would have had a democratic vote.
The thinking on this issue (and it's not alone in this) come from supranational organisations that hand then to national governments. I don't see how changing how the government is selected will make a blind bit of difference.
the Maldives is going to be underwater within our lifetime. the leaders of that nation have made concrete evacuation plans if things continue the way they're going. you're ignorant
5 years ago we were warned we wouldn't be here today. Ten years ago we were warned of runaway sea level rise 30 years ago we were told the Maldives would be under water In the past 30 years, the population of the Maldives has doubled, and Banks are lending for erecting seafront buildings The sea level in the Firth of Forth hasn't changed. The tide gauges around Scotland show some rise and some fall. When are we going to ignore the fearmongering
Runaway climate change is nonsensical. And runaway global warming is not happening. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Our leaders are absurd, but they do match the absurdity of we the people. To live.better, we need to be better.
The question is, who is benefiting the most from the “climate change”craze? Who is doing the opposite of those trying to eliminate fossil fuels and building approximately 4 coal power plants a month and several nuclear power plants? They also are supplying most of the solar panels and control most of the critical raw materials for batteries and wind power generators. CHINA!
My take back on Gray's ideas is that the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess will not get us out of it. Hence new ideas are required. Creative solutions and the need to ADAPT. As an aside, adaptation is much cheaper than tearing things down and rebuilding , which is not what the business elites would like to see.
The global warming from 1800 to 2000 did indeed improve our crop production. 2000 - 2023 we were in the Goldilocks zone for crop production. It will all change really fast. People don’t understand that CC is exponential and crop yields plummet when the summer avg temp gets around +2C. Look at July 2012 in the US Midwest, it was not pretty and that will be the norm very soon.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 yeah, I think for every 1 degree increase in nighttime temperatures during flowering, rice yield diminished by something like 10%....can't remember the exact figures but the point is it is pretty sensitive to changes in temperature over its life cycle.
One of the signs of the age of absurdity for me was the way Boris Johnson was ousted from the office. He wasn't ousted for any of his catastrophic policies (Net Zero, lockdowns, etc). Labour, Lib Dem and most of the Tory party wanted even more of those policies.
The belief system is called scientism. An exaggerating, distorting, and perhaps downright false conception of the history, nature, and methods of science, or more bluntly, a way of getting science wrong
@@thegeneralist7527 Yes. What I was attempting to get at with ‘psyence’ was the psycho nature of the pathology. Most people don’t have the least clue about science, especially its history and the churn of its ideas.
There is substantial evidence for climate change, so simply saying you're 'not a climate sceptic' doesn't necessarily amount to complete allegiance to an irrational apocalyptic faith. You're steamrolling over the middle ground
John Gray just delivered some inconvenient truth bombs. It’s pure copium, however, to suggest that an alternate multiparty system will make any positive difference. All anybody has is adaptation…so enjoy it while you still can.
"4% of all carbon dioxide emissions (worldwide) come from human activity. The other 97% is natural. So if you can prove that the 4% of human carbon emissions, does cause climate change. You've also got to prove that the 97% of natural carbon emissions, does not cause climate change." - Professor Ian Plimer
That's pretty stupid. The question is whether the additional 4% puts the system out of equilibrium. We know that co2 emissions have soared since the start of the industrial revolution - as have temperatures and oceanic uptake of co2 (causing acidification) - and we know of no other plausible explanation for that temperature increase.
I keep hearing politicians, select scientists, and NGO's state that we are approaching run away global warming. Aside from climate models, what indicator is providing these groups with the justification to make these alarmist claims?
We have been in an Age of Absurdity for around 30 years. I woke up to it about 20 years ago. But at least John Gray, someone with a platform, is stating the fact openly.
Climate Change could happen quite suddenly, but it will not be because of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. What is far more remarkable is quite how little the climate does change. If it has changed during my lifetime then I have certainly not noticed any change at all which is already over 60 years. Given the way we are supposed to understand this planet and how it came into existence our world's climate has remained incredibly stable for many thousands of years. This is in spite of many enormous volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes and while apparently, we are periodically becoming closer and farther away from the Sun, moving in many different directions around the galaxy at the same time at fantastic speeds. Logic would seem to dictate that we all should have either fried or frozen to death many millions of years ago and never returned. The self-important arrogance in believing that silly and insignificant mankind can either destroy or save this planet is breathtaking to observe. Yes, we can make a big mess of some otherwise very nice parts of it, but notably increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 we produce will have nothing to do with anything except perhaps make this world more productive and a better place to live for everyone. Net Zero on the other hand will undoubtedly produce masses of murderous poverty around the world and so is the greatest threat to common humanity since the invention of nuclear weapons.
We live on shifting plates, disappearing under the surface, floating on a planet of molten rock, bombarded by cosmic radiation, enjoying a climate controlled by the moon, which is moving away from us. It is a miracle we are here at all.
When you switch off an electrical device, zero symbol means off and 1 means on. Teaching this to kids, you ask them, would you rather be zero or would you prefer to be 1. Zero is death, net-zero is death. The earth can never be net-zero as it will be the end of all life.
A new study which has been published on MDPI at 13 September 2023 showed that it is very difficult to maintain the popular causality between temperature and CO2. According to the authors the causal link between temperature and CO2 makes a compelling narrative as everything is blamed on a single cause, the human CO2 emissions. Indeed, this has been the popular narrative for decades. However, popularity does not necessarily mean correctness, and here they have provided strong arguments against this assumption. Now these scientists have identified atmospheric temperature as the cause and atmospheric CO2 concentration as the effect, one may be tempted to ask the question: What is the cause of the modern increase in temperature? Apparently, this question is much more difficult to reply to as it can no longer attribute everything to any single agent.
I wish that all these philosophers would look at the water they are drinking as at the start of this video. That water was deemed safe to drink by using various scientific techniques standardised, characterised and calibrated by using the engineering process (which is basically the Scientific Method but with tight limits on measurements and assumptions). Conventional science is bounded by assumptions by definition yet the science behind weights and measures and national standards is of much higher quality and repeatability as climate science, cosmology or string theory. If we applied climate science standards to the water, that person would most likely die of poisoning. If we applied it to planes, they would crash and kill people at enormous rates. Maybe not in get off the ground and just explode. Climate science belongs to areas that are fine fields to study but are mostly if not all are purely hypothetical. If you wish to take this hypothetical to the real world is needs to be validated and verified under general engineering principles. And most of it cannot. Climate science is no different. It exists purely in a bubble of assumptions and vague inputs. Ceteris parebus times a hundred. Interesting as an academic endeavour but a WMD if applied to the real world. The UK government hasn't done any validation or verification on it for Net Zero. I know because I asked them through FOI and had them review it officially and still got a link to an IPCC report. God help you if that's what you think passes for fitness to the real world. It's a good thing there are people who don't.
Think you are conflating a perceived issue with climate modelling, with the feasibility of GHG emissions reduction measures. Not sure there are 'general engineering principles' that can capture the complexity of the techno-economic change a shift to lower carbon technologies may imply. Could you clarify?
With every field of study that are levels of imprecisions and these vary largely with the field of study. The degree of imprecision with regard to predictions is large with a science as climate change because of the large complexity of parameters. This doesn't mean that they didn't do a good enough job so far. Understanding the limits of the ability to predict exactly how the temperatures will increase is important. However the prognosis they made for the last 30 years seem to have been reliable enough--the increase of the temperature seems to fit well with the estimations and the big picture seems to be clear enough. It is not like the fact that computer modelling has a large degree of imprecision we could say that global warming is not real.
@@andreimustata5922 If you can't meet signal to noise requirements you can't validate. If your hypothesis says changes of temperature occur at 0.1 degrees per decade you're going to need very precise and well maintained instruments to achieved that. Not temperature readings for boat inlets, buckets and Stephenson screens with animals and beehives in them. And let's not even get started with station citing. "The degree of imprecision with regard to predictions is large with a science as climate change because of the large complexity of parameters." This means you can't apply it to the real world. Because if you do you are applying large assumptions as if they are fact. "the increase of the temperature seems to fit well with the estimations" The actual error on the temperature anomaly record is about at least +/- 1 degrees C. They make the assumptions that all errors are random for all instruments which would fail basic validation in any field. All the modelled variation and the variation itself is noise.
@@johnsawdonify The belief that man-made CO2 is causing significant heating is the basis for then insisting that you need to "lower carbon". If CO2 rising is no threat, which is the current null hypothesis that has not been shown to be incorrect, then why would you worry about lower carbon technologies and the shift to it? If you believe hypothesis can be applied directly to the real world then you should be equally working on liability policies for Santa Claus in case he slips on a roof on Christmas Eve.
@@michaelcorbett4236 The fact that you can't be sure about your prediction doesn't mean that you can't apply it to the world, or that they are meaningless. You cannot know the future, nobody ever did, but you might understand certain principles which are essential for the dynamic involved. Point in case there is no doubt either about the increase of CO_2 nor about its effect on the temperature increase of the planet. You might have doubts about the information collected data but when both the data that we collect and the understanding of the nature that we have points to the same thing it seems to me crazy to say that we don't know what is going on. The data that we have should be carefully looked into and I think that Lovelock was right that investment in careful measurement of data is very important. There are serious debates about the use of computer modelling and their limitations, but these are related to the fine points on how well we are able to understand and predict not in the overall nature of what is going to happen.
Oh my Goodness! Finally someone talking sense!! We need a working Transition, not Green fascism! Start with free working public transport, if you want to get people out of their cars! Its a public Good & will actually cut polution!🌏💛 🕊🕊🕊
Even if public transit was free I still wouldn't want to use it. Mostly due to the dangers of other crazies using it. Stabbings assaults, muggings no thanks.
@stevemarshall3986 no problem, but alot of folks would, especially if parking a nightmare in town. & I don't know where you live. But if public transports that bad, it'll need sorting out...these are some of the positives we can get!🕊
@@martinliehs2513no, free as in A Public Good. We already paying for these dud emissions schemes. Keys pay for one that actually improves All Our Lives!🕊
What a breath of fresh air he is, pragmatic, realistic of limitations & the sad state of our political leaders & the revolts required to dethrone the madness! Love this man can we elect him … can’t get worst right & he’s funny ❤
When a battery stops being useful the components can never be a battery again , what percentage of the work a battery can do in its life needs to go into replacing it ?
I thought they could be recycled? I mean a lithium-ion battery has lithium in much higher concentrations than the minerals it is refined from, don't they? Surely it is easier to obtain lithium from recycled batteries than through mining?
I’m sorry that is not true. Electric vehicle batteries can be reused for other purposes after the car has been scrapped - e.g. in homes to store electricity overnight when supply exceeds demand. Batteries can be recycled and elements such as Lithium recovered from them. This is already done today and the recycling process will be improved over time.
I’m not so sure climate change is primarily human caused anymore. Most of my life I have but I’m realising how tiny how output is compared with the sun and how impossible climate science is to do. Not saying we don’t need to chill at and stop polluting but I’m sick of how similar environmentalists have become to the Catholic Church with original sin and the apocalypse and the endless tolls for you soul. We have the same model with new metaphysics
As a catholic I will say the church's teachings fills me with hope not fear as you suggested, and I'm used to the ignorant misrepresentations. That been said, what I have came to understand is that the learned and scholarly have serious conceptual problems blocking their perceptual lives.
@@outoforbit- I'm not attacking religious faith but pointing out how much faith is in the new model of the apocalypse. The nuance and uncertainty of science vanishes by the times its wielded (increasingly against the citizen) by governments. So many complain about loss of faith in science but its the faith in the way its used and talked about by technocrats that declines. Look what the medieval and renaissance popes did to people's faith in God? Luther and Calvan and the division of a thousand sects are the fruits of such political exploitation. So it goes with our technocratic high priests who claim to work for the greater good and the Goddess Earth.
The climate is always changing, with or without man’s influence. Co2 levels have been far higher in the past, as regards to warming, if you build a big concrete city where there was once a forest you will definitely change the temperature in that zone, whether man can change the temperature of the earth is debatable. Also, we can’t predict the weather 10 days ahead so we have no chance of predicting CLIMATE years into the future full stop.
Surely you realize how risible these statements are as responses to the theory of global heating adduced by people who have made it their life's work to consume and comprehend the sum total of human knowledge about climate and to develop that knowledge further.
@@jamesmorrow1646Actually, it's the Sun that causes the warming (the nearest star, not the newspaper). CO2 is irrelevant, as we can see from the historical data where CO2 levels have been four or five times higher than they are now, with no effects on temperature. The sun is currently putting out more heat than usual, but it won't last long...
1) people are always moving about - and have done since time began, silly! + 2) falling off this cliff is moving about = 3) honestly, what is all this fuss about falling off this cliff? Some people!
This is where me and friends who used to care so much about global warming are, the proposed solutions are garbage... I guess we are further, we don't care anymore and we get annoyed by those who insist on calling this an emergency.
Yes that is the tragedy. And if you doubt the narrative you are now considered to be an Infidel. Oh, and likely a far right conspiracy theorist. That's the current binary system in which classic liberal, left leaning skeptics are now labeled, flagged and tarnished. Profoundly sad..
Every time some alarmist present you "evidence", you should try to look for the signs of manipulation. Scaled up graphs, color schemes, tricks with comparisons, the cherry picking of periods, the wording, and so on. Then also question, what data is the base of the claims (details matter a lot), as your can proove just about anything by picking the right data; and on top of that be aware that almost all the data are not actual temperature measurements, they are many varieties of data manipulation such as approximation, averaging and picking, combined with models and other theoretical additions. There are many things to pick from to invent your "proof", ice cores, tree rings, upper/lower atmosphere, tropical, arctic, localized, sea temperature, many of these are modelled not actual observations. Also localized data is often used, for example "the hottest day since we began measuring" can mean, this weather station was set up in 2005 and this is the hottest it has ever recorded (which isn't factually false, but the message is); or it can be that there was the hottest over a cherry picked period (still local). Also all the places where there has been colder than usual, do you ever hear about those ? they are the ones that pull down the average (global) temperature and the reason we are factually not seing alarming global temperature rise. Also check your own bias, are you one of those who think because you remember your childhood having cold winters and this one there were hardly any snow, and use that as proof ? It is not scientific, it is not proof, and it might not even be correct because our memory is far from reliable. Climate alarmism is not science and certainly not fact. It is a data manipulation business, they are starting with the conclusion and creating and picking data to support it. Most of it is easily debunkable, with all kinds of holes in the logic and conclusions, some is somewhat plausable as a theory but lack enough knowledge to be considered proof. With the amount and size of lies and manipulations you will catch them in if you start paying attention to details and counter arguments; your fraud alarm bells should be ringing loudly .. the same alarm bells that rings when the Nigerian prince wants to give you all his money locked away in a bank account.
9:13 Also the flooding theories of coastal areas are flawed. Because the north pole consists of floating ice which when melting does not change one inch in the sea level. And the south pole is not melting. Now I am not an official scientist with a PhD, fortunately otherwise I would be ashamed about my profession.
Cringeworthy .... the models have been proven to be wrong time and time and .... time again. When the people peddling the sea level rising scares are buying sea front properties quite literally AT SEA LEVEL, then you know they are lying about something. Still yet to see the poles shrink and any actual statistically significant extreme weather events. A casual glance at the data is sufficient to see if anything, things have gotten better. What has intensified is the reporting of events that we would once have never have heard about.
@@amraceway Where? Sea levels are rising and they're falling just as they always have and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'climate change', in parts of Northern Europe sea levels are falling as the great land masses slowly recover after having gigatons of ice press them down during the last major ice age just 10000 years ago, elsewhere sea levels are rising as continents shift and groan. The Maldives, which according to eco alarmist clowns should have sunk in the 90's have recently finished building a new international airport to cater for its growing population and growing tourism. Show me exactly where 'climate change' is causing sea levels to rise. Antarctica doesn't have sea ice, only the Arctic has sea ice, ie frozen sea water and the Arctic is doing just fine, as someone who has been there twice and the Antarctic 5 times please trust me on this. Antarctica is a land mass from which glaciers calve into the sea just as they always have, it's currently -27 average which is completely normal but over the past 6 months this last Antarctic winter has been the coldest on record. Please desist posting completely unwarranted alarmist drivel. This is all great news, you should rejoice and thank me for telling you but I suspect you won't because these cold stark facts do not fit your alarmist narrative.
@@antonrudenham3259 Obviously as the sea is not flat there will be variations but as water warms it expands and it is getting hotter. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature As the biggest factor in climate is sea temperature as it gets hotter things will change.The loss of sea ice in Antarctica is a worry as thousands of immature penguins drowned due to melting ice. However don't panic as nothing will change human behaviour , either mine or yours ,so que sera, sera.
Excellent in what way? This guy completepy buys into the global warming nonsense to the point of being hysterical. I have a few ideas what this kind of idiocy could lead to. They want to take away our heat and food and mobility. Hope you like cricket powder and the cold.
Our rush to be the first country to achieve net zero has resulted in vertually nothing is made in England anymore. Trying to find clothes ,shoes furniture that's affordable will result in them beimade elsewhere.
Climate has always changed for better or worse. We just have to adapt, ourselves, as individuals. The technocrats and politicians aint gonna ‘solve’ shit. Humans have endured climatic extremes for millennia and thrived. Lets just move on.
Adaptation is not enough when we are the cause of the change. As long as we adapt we will increase the changes till we will not be able to adapt anymore. Life is adaptable but only in certain limits.
@@andreimustata5922another way of avoiding facts is the ability to cancel anyone with an opposing view. If your facts were true, then they would welcome the challenge.
@@charlesoleary3066 Who is cancelling whom? Please proceed with. your challenge. The fact that there is not the same weight given to scientific clear facts and amateurs not knowing what they talk about is not cancelling. It is true tha there is also a lot of propaganda related with climate change but this doesn't make the basic facts untrue.
Couldn't agree more with this. I live in Norway and with more authoritarian control policies on the way it's more about appearing to do something rather than anything else. Green washing and as always it's the low income people thats affected the most.
The reason they call it climate change is so we think it's real. But everyone knows the climate changes. This has nothing to do with man. Why are they not calling it what they claim it actually is? Manmade climate change? Because nobody would take them seriously because the concept is ABSURD.
Implausible? Your lack of education doesn’t need to be displayed so publicly chief. Best to keep that sort of numb-skullery in the privacy of your home. less embarrassing.
Firstly the world is not burning. Second we can Adapt and survive. Governments are prepared to sacrifice people alive now for someone who might exist in the future.
The idea that less than 200 years of industrial development, which occurred in a very small percentage of the land on earth, could affect the atmosphere and climate of the whole world is absurd. 71% WATER 29% LAND and most of the land is empty. perspective is badly needed here, not the myopic narcissism of those who think they know everything.
I think you need to buy into the fact that a climate alarmism is a way overstated. And the issues are nowhere near as bad as they are made out to be. As an earth scientist, it is clear to me that the mathematical models of climate are ridiculously simple and totally unreliable. Natural variation in climate is totally ignored and makes the outcomes totally irrelevant. Bastardization of the temperature record over the last 100 years has also made the predictions look far worse than they are.
@@gendunchoepel3480 If the people who purporting to predict the climate in ten years are using the methods that are not accurate at thirty days to predict the weather, then we should ignore them.
He's spot on about climate scientists putting too much faith in models and not measuring enough, even where it is cheap and low cost. But I see no reason why it could not go the other way and be better than they predicted. Also I think we will have time to react. There is also a Russian theory of climate science that says the changing forest locations are affecting the likes of the gulf stream etc and cause more severe weather in places. This is because each tree breathes and together they create wind. It needs looking into. As do other theories. As does if we have more time to react - to wait and see. Too much group think in scientists (which is normal through history, it's where the term paradigm shift came from). So far - when the models have got more detailed, it predicts more climate doom. But that does not mean they are underestimating it. Different dynamics result in different resolutions in models. At a certain point it all shifts the other way, so it is a mistake to extrapolate based on increasing model resolution and more climate sensitivity.
The best predictor of global average temperature is Earth Energy Imbalance. Increase the energy imbalance and the temp will follow just like turning the heat up on a pot of water. The EEI has risen steadily since 2000 and starting around ten years ago the global average temp accelerated. The record high EEI in 2023 guarantees that much more heating is on the way and fast.
first question presumes we are able to 'look back'. i doubt we will either be able to look back, or be 'allowed' to laugh at certain subjects by a future date - given where we are all be herded towards. if you havent noticed there is no logic or science today - everything is driven top down with certain goals in mind, with nothing being properly considered.
Great comments. We need to prepare our country for the changes that could envelope us because our 1% contribution to the problem if we eliminated it would not stop our country being overwhelmed. We need to protect ourselves not try to solve the problem. It's just a waste of real effort.
John Nicholas Gray is an English political philosopher and author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has written several books on politics and philosophy, including False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is unstable and is in the process of collapsing, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religious ideologies, and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of Utopian thinking in the modern world. Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray writes that 'humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them.'
Thanks for that info as I had never heard of him before, but listening to him here I did wonder if he had serious conceptual problems blocking his perceptual life.
Do either of you have any specific issues with his talk? Or are you trawling for ad hom insinuations of unsavouriness, as often seems to pass for intellectual critique these days?
@@tbayley6 he made valid observations, but I don't see that he has an overall perspective, well in this talk anyway. There are many academics with understandable critiques but beyond that it isn't clear what ground they are standing on, if any. In my opinion, the absence of a clear moral sensibility is the heart of the matter. It's the foundation to build on. Now morality isn't a concept made up by humans, and believing it to be such ends up with the absurd notion that is now prevalent and indeed propagated, that my truth is my truth and yours is yours, which is basically chaos. Morality exists already in the structure of reality, we ignore it at our peril. For example, a 3 year old witnessing the beating of an animal knows it's wrong, nobody needs to tell the 3 year old.
Interesting, but he gets two huge things wrong in his attack on mainstream climate policy. 1. Renewables are good for jobs. According to the 2019 U.S. Energy & Employment Report, in 2018 there were 2.4 million jobs in clean energy generation and energy efficiency, compared to half that many in fossil energy production. This is great for the economy, the climate and the political legitimacy of climate action, and the dramatic efficiency gains of renewables in the last decade have been driven by massive investment encouraged by governments. 2. It makes a massive difference whether or not we reduce (or increase!) emissions. Clearly much warming is locked in, but how much and how fast? That's up to us. Adaptation is a secondary consideration; after all, how far should coastal communities retreat to escape rising seas, if we never stop making them rise? What other impacts should we adapt to? If we never mitigate then we will have to adapt forever until it's not possible any more and civilisation itself becomes impossible.
I think the actual stop point is 0.018% but I could be wrong. But your point stands. We're perilously close to having so little CO2 in the atmosphere as to cause the extinction of all life on earth.
Rush Limbaugh said that the right measures by results while the left measures by intent. Even if the results are catastrophic if the initial intentions were aligned with the emotional left then it isn’t ever going to be considered a failure in their eyes.
2:33 Wind turbine sure is job creative because of the upkeep. I remember dozens of employees picking up pieces of paper in the English subway stations or taking in used tickets one by one just to provide for employment. Surely the cost was not comparable with the output.
The Guardian....about the new book..... "The philosopher falls back on generalities and sketches of oddballs in his latest, sometimes frenzied assault on liberalism and humanity" Me......must check this out :) , "The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths" was great uplifting fun
It is quite unlikely that we experience runaway climate change. Most of the trends in climate sensitivity assessments in peer reviewed literature are actually toward lower levels. This year's big climate events weren't mainly driven by climate change, but instead by an extremely unusual ENSO condition.
But he's absolutely right that imposition of regulation that prevents people from carrying out their lives isn't sustainable. It leads them to eventually revolt. It follows that the best way to reduce climate change is to replace fuels, not to force people to stop using fuel.
Yes, i don't know why John Grey choses to believe that things are far worse than even the IPCC reports say. It seems like blind faith in what some of his friends are saying. Hardly scientific.
Apparently, here in the UK, wind turbines are going to get so cheap, they only need electricity prices to rise by 70% to pay for them! Mmm, bargain. Friday morning when I got up, it was pitch dark, so no input from solar, and zero wind (so heavy mist). Contribution from these two was therefore zero. That must be the Net Zero I hear so much about. There cannot be runaway climate change - the climate system works on negative feedbacks.
All the models run hot, we know this because we know the ground temperature record, and satellite temperature data, so how could he possibly say they're underestimating the models!?
The issue with the models isn’t whether they are underestimating or overestimating climate change….it’s that without the empirical measurement you suggested they aren’t scientific at all. The scientific method is *not* rooted in models alone (whether hypotheses OR predictive tools) but rather on empirical confirmation of models. Without this, you simply don’t have science. Further, there must be a more rigorous attempt to stabilize our measurements temporally (to account for measurement device variation, urban heat island zones, changes in emissivity, etc.) or our attempts at empirical confirmation will be skewed.
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - The speaker is skeptical about the effectiveness of net zero plans and conventional green policies. - The infrastructure and technology necessary for these policies were not in place when they were launched. - Many of the raw materials needed for green initiatives are controlled by China and Africa. - The economic costs of green programs were not properly assessed. - The speaker believes that focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation is necessary. - The speaker suggests that runaway climate change may already be happening and cannot be stopped. - The speaker criticizes the reliance on models and the lack of empirical data in climate science. - Technocratic pragmatism is ineffective and disrupts the lives and incomes of many people. - The speaker predicts that the implementation of green policies may lead to social unrest and riots. - The speaker suggests that electoral reform and the creation of new political parties may be a solution.
1:55 The net zero policy of course is in great contrast to the fact now (after four decades) the percentage of green energy still is only about 7% of the total. Which is fossil. So no effect has been realized, while solar and wind for instance (or nuclear) as alternatives are known by science for at least five decades. So the argument of batteries to be honest is quite besides the point. Are you capable of thinking?
Agree with some of what Gray says, but totally disagree with runaway climate change due to human induced factors. Overall, he didn't make a great deal of sense. Anyone who can't pronounce nuclear (says NuKuLar) clearly can't think clearly!!!😂 He keeps saying we underestimate the rate of climate change, when the data is crystal clear that our models have significantly overestimated reality. Spending money on adapting to climate change rather than wasting money on net zero is pretty much the only thing I really agreed with.
adapt to what? look at the temperature gradient for the North Sea over the last 20 years and you will sea there is none, flat as a pancake. if you disallow debate and allow cherry picking you can convince people of anything. like the need for adaptation.
Agree with his main point. I say to all CO2 obsessives: if we could do nothing about this co2 rise (i.e. it was from increased volcanic activity), what would you do to protect us? Let's do that.
@@davidboult4143maybe not what the other person was talking about, but plants do release carbon dioxide through the processes of respiration and photorespiration.
Such a joy to hear some talk sense and drop the nonsensical group and camp think. Narcissistic self righteousness is an expression of helplessness. And we have seen in the past which dynamics can be triggered, if enough fuel is given to that fire. It needs more adults. And that requires the young asking the questions, the older to listen and get inspired to explore together and then lead decision making.
An Age of Absurdity, in part - but certainly an age of pre-modern animist belief. Chants, mantras, and totems to appease the climate gods, rather than science and rationalism. In my country we're spending 8% on the consequences of the last enormous storm, on 9 months ago. This may repeat more often than our past experience. So, rational public policy and budgeting says set the mitigation dial to "nudge" and the adaptation dial to Max, and engage in managed retreat. We can't do both in a small country, no matter how much handwavium about distributional consequences and "playing our part". It's utter nonsense. The only people who say "do both" are people who cannot conceive of hard budget constraints. THAT is our finite world.
Here from Germany, the green policies are hysterical.
and a waste of time
Why?
@@chrismackenzie4789 get real man
@@pauljones5066 that’s not an answer
@@chrismackenzie4789 hahaha 🙂
‘Net Zero’ means exactly that - Nothing
What does the "net" bit mean? Nobody has ever explained that.
@@davidboult4143 .. Exactly. I understand it as being ‘overall’. As in, nothing in and nothing out. Overall carbon the same - Which is meaningless. We all did the Carbon cycle at school - The same amount of carbon in the world going round and round over millions of years.
There is no climate crisis...the end😮
Much like “COVID”, we have overactive “imaginations”, both respiratory disease and climate exist, but we seem to have turned them into some sort of “bogey-man”……
I think if we are serious about net zero then a top down approach is the way to go. No private jets, no superyachts, two cars only, no multiple residences etc. They talk of a trickle down effect so let us put it to use here.
To add to that, also cut down on consumerism, planned obsolescence, use of plastics, and the profit incentive of capitalism.
the biggest change we need is the concept that people need to do/manufacture something to be paid a wage; a significant section of all jobs are nothing but a box ticking exercise, a waste of energy and generation of waste material (plastic toys come to mind; but also "work" in many government departments); the planet and the poeple on it would live better if these jobs were not done in the first place
capitalism as it exists now, is extremely wasteful
Well said!!
@@jaytsecanThe profit incentive is not the problem: it represents the creation of value.
The problem is socio-political. It is political elites captured by ideology whose consequences they barely understand, and a broader spiritual malaise in society in which power is the only thing held to be of value.
Did capitalism demand Human Resources? Much of these make work schemes are to provide something for women to do as a social engineering egalitarian project. Same for universities, massive increase in admin in NHS and gov.
I now live in the US and have lived in Asia. In general, I am shocked about the amount of propaganda in the UK media and the level of groupthink that exists. Orwell would have been impressed. When I return to the UK most people seem to have been brainwashed, especially on net zero. I have developed and financed energy projects in Europe, North America, and Asia. Net zero makes no sense for the UK. It produces less than 1% of global CO2, whatever Britain does makes no difference, net zero will just make ordinary people poorer. Elites can be replaced, I was in Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall down and spoke to ex-communists who were once in powerful positions. John Gray is probably right, the people could rebel, if they conclude that the people making the decisions are clowns.
you should follow the nonsense that's occurring in canada.
I fear that tutting and eye rolling is the most reaction you will see from the British
The earth will be warming, and that will be extremely expensive. However, we can still limit the warming (e.g. by using nuclear energy) and reduce not only suffering but also economic damage. It doesn't matter what share of CO2 is produced by the UK, because every country has to do their bit.
It's getting closer .... the mood has changed drastically over the last few years as the trckle of people beginning to investigate all the claims more deeply has now surged as they are being touched by the reality of how their lives will be impoverished and freedoms curtailed. I know from taking the issue to my local council several years ago, none of them had any inkling of what is in store...they do now, meeting people in the community who surprise me by their knowledge. It is building and will only get bigger
How many Asian countries are committing economic suicide via net Zero. None. This a sickness of Western civilisation.
Imagine all that money going towards strengthening public services, schools, hospitals... cleaning our waters, getting our kids into science, building houses, upgrade houses to make them more energy efficient, invest in technologies and innovation etc... but nooooo ...
Those things have been going on since the second world war! I didn't get the impression he was against any of that. Rather, he specifically referred to the huge investment that is ongoing in renewables and EVs without honest consideration of their underlying resource demands. He also suggested that a realisation was coming that would be hard to accept for those wedded to the current paradigm.
You didn't understand what he said then did you..noooo
The world is not burning, it especially is not boiling. Political rhetoric is presented as science.
In Germany, the climate debate has quasi-religious overtones. This is very difficult to bear, because any criticism of the existing climate models is interpreted as a “denial” of climate change. Young people stick to main roads and demand 100 km/h speed limits and free train tickets. Politics reacts as if under hypnosis and without pragmatism. Most people do not question the obviously contradictory political decisions, such as the shutdown of the nuclear power plants. The people who are skeptical only express their opinions in secret. The social climate is becoming more and more complicated and difficult because the freedom to express one's opinion officially exists but leads to social exclusion.
Germany's pretty fucked alright.
I had a German academic Freind of many years here in UK and when I simply pointed out a few inconsistencies, she got upset and called me a naz.i I was shocked, it was a few years ago. I always knew she was an ideological thinker. I'm sorry to say but I have learned over the years that ideological thinking is Germany's malady. I really don't think your country has truly learned anything from your country's past. Creating concepts and theorising seriously blocks perception. As a nation you guys need to turn to God.
Thank you for sharing Germany's social climate surrounding the climate change debate. Much appreciated. I live in the USA and it is pretty much the same in California. And I have family in Canada and it is very much the same. I think a very small percentage of the population, anywhere, believe that the climate is not changing, perhaps even rapidly. But I think we all need to continue to express our opinion, even if it means we will be excluded of some of our social circles. This way, the "fringe" society will be able to assemble and debate and not be excluded anymore.
@@outoforbit- we need to stop ideological thinking... and turn to god... got it 🤦♂️
@@mbrochh82 well covering your eyes won't help
I'm far more concerned with harmful chemicals in our air and water, co2 is plant food.
Same..I'm worried about our water, plastic pollution etc. The planet will do what it does about climate...but if they carry on this net zero stuff, it will struggle I fear.
As a child in the 80's they preached that cars spew out pollution. Fuel injection and computer engine management reduced that significantly. So they changed to a new demon, CO2.
Agreed
Also concerned with what we are being encouraged to inject or ingest into our bodies
Quite so
As Mark Mills has pointed out, the Green movement paid no attention to the extreme environmental damage that almost certainly will result from mining the raw materials that are mandatory to achieve “net zero” and the massive amount of GHG that will (not might) be emitted from processing and refining. Plus, no plan for necessary recycling, which also will have environmental consequences. In other words, “net zero” is an aspiration with neither plan nor consideration of risk. It depends almost totally on the human element known as Hopeium.
There’s not enough of these esoteric rare earth materials to do the “green” transition even if they tried.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 I suggest that the goal of the smart Greenies (there are a few, at the top) is not to switch us to all electric vehicles but to eliminate personal transportation. Similarly, they don’t want a broad range of energy sources, they want one they can control (electricity, via what will be their grid). It’s about total control. Food (no more meat), energy, transportation, government crypto, education, the media, healthcare, even your child’s “choice” of gender: that’s every aspect of your life except the air you breathe. That’s the Green vision.
very true. and i appreciate you laying that out without then jumping to the conclusion that climate change is therefore exaggerated / a hoax / a global elite conspiracy. Because it's still there! So what to do then? Max nuclear, max hydropower, max carbon capture, max investment in scaling new technologies (fusion, direct air capture)... gas as bridge, scaled geoengineering trials. success is not guaranteed of course. but to say the problem doesnt exist because i can't think of a way to solve it (and the people who bang on about it are *so* annoying!) just isn't grown up.
It’s a cope, the idea we can have advanced liberal democracy and endless consumption witho it paying a price. Total delusion, as energy cannot be created from nothing.
Each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaces less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity (York, 2012). Moreover, the world has never transitioned to a low energy return on investment. We still use large amounts of biomass. Let that sink in!
Interestingly, climate policies always enrich someone of some groups. It's simply a wealth transfer. Everyone has to contribute their own money to state budgets whether they like it or not and then few companies are benefiting from this money which is given away by politicians.
Indeed they do, as do policies that favour fossil fuels. That is capitalism......
@@johnsawdonify yet "climate emergency" "solutions" are all based on additional taxes or fees - so, unlike "favoring fossil fuels" everyone has to pay for it, whether they like it or not.
It's extorting everyone to benefit few.
@@johnsawdonifynot those ghaaarstly fossil fuels that power our civilisation.... Yes those gas turbines and coal fired plants that have to be powered as back up, because "renewables" don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.
Never take climate advise from people who fly in private jets
@@alfree4366"benefit the few"? this whole thing is about having a healthy planet for generations to come. for everyone..
"The green movement " wants to starve the planet of plant food. All in the name of saving it.
@@noespam2434 Keep drinking the kool ai....er...I mean Brawndo ;)
@@noespam2434it’s got what plants crave!
Thé Green movement was subverted long ago
They want to eradicate people from the planet. We're the carbon they want to reduce. That's why they brainwash kids into believing human life worth is nothing and animals have more value
I think he's dead accurate about the social revolt that's coming regarding the regulations imposed in the name of climate change. He's also correct about the proposed solutions to climate change - they won't work and cannot work. But I think he's dead wrong about the consequences of climate change. Since the first Earth Day in 1970 every single prophesy of disaster produced by self-proclaimed experts has turned out to be wrong. Despite all their doom & gloom, humanity has never been better fed, housed, clothed and educated. Amusingly the extra CO2 has boosted plant growth by about 15% and that is helping feed us.
Where is the data to support that humanity is better fed, housed, clothed and educated? On the contrary I'd argue that we are worse fed than ever, obesity, toxic food and forever chemicals are global epidemics. Much of the built environment is cheap concrete built to last a few decades at most, nothing is built to stand for millennia like the buildings of Rome. Much of the clothing industry is through slave and child labor. What qualifies as education is highly debatable.
"Since the first Earth Day in 1970 every single prophesy of disaster produced by self-proclaimed experts has turned out to be wrong"
Sure, not every prophesy comes true but experts have been proclaiming for a long time now that temperature will rise and that we will have more frequent disasters, which has occurred, so this is just a factually false statement.
"Amusingly the extra CO2 has boosted plant growth by about 15% and that is helping feed us."
Cite a source for this please. It is researched that the planet is greening due to extra CO2 as well as climate change, but your exact figure of 15% is something that I cannot find. How does this in any way cover for increasing extreme weather events, droughts, heat waves, floods, sea level rise, and ocean acidification which will continue the massive extinction event that we are currently living through?
Not sure he's correct at the beginning there.
Lovelock originally predicted billions of deaths and the small remnants of humanity surviving only by moving to the Arctic.
In an interview in 2012, a telephone interview with MSNBC, he said,
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
The net zero approach is tragic.
We should focus on preserving what is left of the Amazon rainforest.
I am convinced that has infinite more influence on the climate.
I have been kind of an environmentalist and did my share of not poluting the earth within what is possible.
But now I think: I don't want to be a part of this lunacy.
Anything initiated by the government should be independently analysed.
1, All government policy on this subject is to tax you more and create the illusion of doom.
2, No government policy gives the people money.
3, The climate is always changing but the one argument you will not hear about is population. Less people, less demand on resourses, not rocket science.
4, Wind farms cost, electric vehicle infrastructure costs.
5, No CO2 no food. The only reason there is life on earth is because of CO2.
6, The most sensible route to net zero, if that is the plan, is to create something that stores immence amounts of CO2 and returns oxygen as a by product and that is to plant forests, mixed native species. This of course does not earn the corrupt government back handers from solar and wind organisations.
7, Dr Patrick moore and some of his independant scholars state that there is a derth of CO2 but they are never consulted.
8, The only purpose of government is to win power over the people because it is lucrative, period. They have not got your best interests at heart, that is an illusion.
Well said. I couldn't argue with any of that. (nor can anyone else, seemingly, mine being the only reply)
Net Zero = less of us
It’s not always easy to agree with Gray, but he is always worth listening to and reflecting on your own views and beliefs. In that alone there is usually something to learn. But he’s often right too.
We have to train ourselves to listen to what other people with other perspectives say. We must dare to wear other glasses, not necessarily to change our mind but to evolve our own thinking. Everyone is wrong about something. I'm rather sure I'm right here though.
Mao's great leap forward ( no tech and no infrastructure ) and his cultural revolution ( mobilization of the ignorant to dominate the debate and vandalism ) combined
We are expecting to reverse our energy sources that have developed over thousands of years to new very weak sources all in 30 years. We have 80% in fossil. We cannot replace that with renewables EVER. NUCLEAR IS ONE WAY, BUT RENEWABLES ARE INTERMITTENT SO BACKUP IS NEEDED FOR SECURITY.THAT CAN ONLY BE FOSSIL OR NUCLEAR FOR ENERGY SECURITY.
It's called baseload, something that net zero zealots don't understand.
John Gray tells us that James Lovelock said that "climate science underestimates the changes in the climate". In a strong sense, there's no such thing as Climate Science if we treat it as a Platonic form or if we personify it. Instead, climate science is made up of around a dozen separate scientific disciplines, many institutions, many university departments, many journals and numerous scientists. Thus, it hardly makes to say, "Climate sciences says..." or "Climate science underestimates...".... These things can justifiably be said about certain very precise and circumscribed scientific disciplines, but not "climate science" - which was hardly referred to at all until the 1970s or even later than that.
I think Gray was way off point on climate change.
I really don't get your point. Does make any difference if one says the scientists studying climate say....?
@@andreimustata5922 My "point" is in my reply. I can copy and paste it again, and you can read it again. I'm not sure of the point of your own response.
@@paulaustinmurphy I asked you if you would have felt any different if it would have been said "scientists who study climate say". The fact that the people studying climate could have many different backgrounds seems irrelevant to his points.
@@andreimustata5922 What!? You think that my point was that "the people studying climate could have many different backgrounds"? Really? He was personifying science. He was treating as if it were a single person with a single view. Do I really need to repeat myself? My point is that people keep on talking about "THE Science" when they mean particular scientists who say things that they agree with. It's a means of making their own stance seem objective, unbiased and scientific. As it is, who says that even most scientists (not THE Science) say that the rate of climate change has been underestimated. If anything, many argue that the problem is "alarmism" - over estimating the change.
The electoral reform needed is an informed electorate, with public, informed discussions to determine the issues and the possible solutions.
The European countries have very varied methods of electing representatives, yet they have all produced dysfunctional, self destructive governments and local authorities, so rearranging the deckchairs won't solve anything.
You know I don't think they're self destructive. At least not wittingly. I think what's more likely is they have a US dollar account somewhere out there with a lot of zeros and they put their own interests before the interests of the electorate. Some call this corruption but you could go as far as to say it's downright treason. There are other causes and reasons that explain the destructive behaviour but I think maybe the ockham's razor principle above is the biggest one in the causal spectrum here.
People dont elect anyone anymore. Elites do using their media propaganda machine.
Sure you can vote, but the majority of the voting population isnt intelligent enough to see thru propaganda and will vote whatever the TV tells them to. Politicians are not elected anymore, not really in like 95% of cases, they are selected and the voting is just a fascade or "coronation" ceremony.
The Swiss model works well enough at all levels. But it involves true democracy, any citizen can get the law changed if he follows the process. So of course, we didn't vote to join the EU as that would have been the last time we would have had a democratic vote.
The thinking on this issue (and it's not alone in this) come from supranational organisations that hand then to national governments. I don't see how changing how the government is selected will make a blind bit of difference.
Excellent comment. We need power to be less concentrated, not a new system for deciding which suits are wielding power centrally.
They've been saying since the 1970s that the oceans are rising, yet all this land at sea level is still there!
And Al Gore predicted sea levels that would rise so fast causing all coastal areas to flood. However he owns a sea front mansion...
the Maldives is going to be underwater within our lifetime. the leaders of that nation have made concrete evacuation plans if things continue the way they're going. you're ignorant
Just wait. Netflix will change their name to ‘Netzero.’
I won't hold my breath.
0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.
5 years ago we were warned we wouldn't be here today.
Ten years ago we were warned of runaway sea level rise
30 years ago we were told the Maldives would be under water
In the past 30 years, the population of the Maldives has doubled, and Banks are lending for erecting seafront buildings
The sea level in the Firth of Forth hasn't changed.
The tide gauges around Scotland show some rise and some fall.
When are we going to ignore the fearmongering
Runaway climate change is nonsensical. And runaway global warming is not happening. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not pollution.
Our leaders are absurd, but they do match the absurdity of we the people.
To live.better, we need to be better.
The question is, who is benefiting the most from the “climate change”craze? Who is doing the opposite of those trying to eliminate fossil fuels and building approximately 4 coal power plants a month and several nuclear power plants? They also are supplying most of the solar panels and control most of the critical raw materials for batteries and wind power generators. CHINA!
My take back on Gray's ideas is that the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess will not get us out of it. Hence new ideas are required. Creative solutions and the need to ADAPT. As an aside, adaptation is much cheaper than tearing things down and rebuilding , which is not what the business elites would like to see.
The models cannot even be made to match the past 30 year of actual results. They are all over stating the likely outcomes.
They are not all over the place. All bar one, from Russia whose internal assumptions are not known, run too hot
Because CO2, (the culprit according to them), only represents 0.04% in the Earth's atmosphere.
The Russian model assumes the climate system has a low sensativity to c02
Higher CO2 is a blessing, it greens the planet.
CO2 level was too low for optimal plant growth.
Its still low, but its getting better.
The undeniable truth.
A truth that is never mentioned for propaganda reasons.
The global warming from 1800 to 2000 did indeed improve our crop production. 2000 - 2023 we were in the Goldilocks zone for crop production. It will all change really fast. People don’t understand that CC is exponential and crop yields plummet when the summer avg temp gets around +2C. Look at July 2012 in the US Midwest, it was not pretty and that will be the norm very soon.
@@anabolicamaranth7140
nonsense
@@anabolicamaranth7140 yeah, I think for every 1 degree increase in nighttime temperatures during flowering, rice yield diminished by something like 10%....can't remember the exact figures but the point is it is pretty sensitive to changes in temperature over its life cycle.
One of the signs of the age of absurdity for me was the way Boris Johnson was ousted from the office. He wasn't ousted for any of his catastrophic policies (Net Zero, lockdowns, etc). Labour, Lib Dem and most of the Tory party wanted even more of those policies.
100%...make people poorer...colder...and lock them in a house nothing to see...piece of cake? off with his head!
So true
“I’m not a climate sceptic. …”
Stop right there. He’s a *believer*!
Well, that’s the cult of psyence for you.
The belief system is called scientism. An exaggerating, distorting, and perhaps downright false conception of the history, nature, and methods of science, or more bluntly, a way of getting science wrong
@@thegeneralist7527 Yes. What I was attempting to get at with ‘psyence’ was the psycho nature of the pathology.
Most people don’t have the least clue about science, especially its history and the churn of its ideas.
There is substantial evidence for climate change, so simply saying you're 'not a climate sceptic' doesn't necessarily amount to complete allegiance to an irrational apocalyptic faith. You're steamrolling over the middle ground
Yup, just someone who cares about evidence and reason.
He has to say that to stay sufficiently in the "in" crowd. Only so much scepticism is permitted.
I agree, we are in the Age of Absurdity and this discussion proves it
I honestly don't know what you mean, what's absurd about it?
@@dkvikingkd233 "We're in a crisis, so let's accentuate it." is absurdism
John Gray just delivered some inconvenient truth bombs. It’s pure copium, however, to suggest that an alternate multiparty system will make any positive difference. All anybody has is adaptation…so enjoy it while you still can.
@@noespam2434broiled? Exactly how much do you think the temperature will change? 5,10,15c
"4% of all carbon dioxide emissions (worldwide) come from human activity.
The other 97% is natural.
So if you can prove that the 4% of human carbon emissions, does cause climate change.
You've also got to prove that the 97% of natural carbon emissions, does not cause climate change."
- Professor Ian Plimer
That's pretty stupid. The question is whether the additional 4% puts the system out of equilibrium. We know that co2 emissions have soared since the start of the industrial revolution - as have temperatures and oceanic uptake of co2 (causing acidification) - and we know of no other plausible explanation for that temperature increase.
I keep hearing politicians, select scientists, and NGO's state that we are approaching run away global warming. Aside from climate models, what indicator is providing these groups with the justification to make these alarmist claims?
Answer: Fake measurements reports and cherry picked statistics.
In the 1970s the same scientists were sure we were heading for a new ICE age
their bank balances?
No climate model says there will be runaway warming.
We have been in an Age of Absurdity for around 30 years. I woke up to it about 20 years ago. But at least John Gray, someone with a platform, is stating the fact openly.
more than 30 years...
@@davidbottana7494 The (absurdity) graph is hockey stick shaped ...
Climate Change could happen quite suddenly, but it will not be because of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. What is far more remarkable is quite how little the climate does change. If it has changed during my lifetime then I have certainly not noticed any change at all which is already over 60 years. Given the way we are supposed to understand this planet and how it came into existence our world's climate has remained incredibly stable for many thousands of years. This is in spite of many enormous volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes and while apparently, we are periodically becoming closer and farther away from the Sun, moving in many different directions around the galaxy at the same time at fantastic speeds. Logic would seem to dictate that we all should have either fried or frozen to death many millions of years ago and never returned. The self-important arrogance in believing that silly and insignificant mankind can either destroy or save this planet is breathtaking to observe. Yes, we can make a big mess of some otherwise very nice parts of it, but notably increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 we produce will have nothing to do with anything except perhaps make this world more productive and a better place to live for everyone. Net Zero on the other hand will undoubtedly produce masses of murderous poverty around the world and so is the greatest threat to common humanity since the invention of nuclear weapons.
We live on shifting plates, disappearing under the surface, floating on a planet of molten rock, bombarded by cosmic radiation, enjoying a climate controlled by the moon, which is moving away from us. It is a miracle we are here at all.
”Murdorous poverty” sounds very similar outcome that in communism : murdorous & powerty.
@@davidboult4143 Quite so.
When you switch off an electrical device, zero symbol means off and 1 means on. Teaching this to kids, you ask them, would you rather be zero or would you prefer to be 1. Zero is death, net-zero is death. The earth can never be net-zero as it will be the end of all life.
Don't necessarily agree with all of his points of view, but it's very refreshing to listen to someone without ingrained ideological belief. ...
A new study which has been published on MDPI at 13 September 2023 showed that it is very difficult to maintain the popular causality between temperature and CO2. According to the authors the causal link between temperature and CO2 makes a compelling narrative as everything is blamed on a single cause, the human CO2 emissions. Indeed, this has been the popular narrative for decades. However, popularity does not necessarily mean correctness, and here they have provided strong arguments against this assumption. Now these scientists have identified atmospheric temperature as the cause and atmospheric CO2 concentration as the effect, one may be tempted to ask the question: What is the cause of the modern increase in temperature? Apparently, this question is much more difficult to reply to as it can no longer attribute everything to any single agent.
I wish that all these philosophers would look at the water they are drinking as at the start of this video. That water was deemed safe to drink by using various scientific techniques standardised, characterised and calibrated by using the engineering process (which is basically the Scientific Method but with tight limits on measurements and assumptions). Conventional science is bounded by assumptions by definition yet the science behind weights and measures and national standards is of much higher quality and repeatability as climate science, cosmology or string theory. If we applied climate science standards to the water, that person would most likely die of poisoning. If we applied it to planes, they would crash and kill people at enormous rates. Maybe not in get off the ground and just explode.
Climate science belongs to areas that are fine fields to study but are mostly if not all are purely hypothetical. If you wish to take this hypothetical to the real world is needs to be validated and verified under general engineering principles. And most of it cannot. Climate science is no different. It exists purely in a bubble of assumptions and vague inputs. Ceteris parebus times a hundred. Interesting as an academic endeavour but a WMD if applied to the real world. The UK government hasn't done any validation or verification on it for Net Zero. I know because I asked them through FOI and had them review it officially and still got a link to an IPCC report. God help you if that's what you think passes for fitness to the real world. It's a good thing there are people who don't.
Think you are conflating a perceived issue with climate modelling, with the feasibility of GHG emissions reduction measures. Not sure there are 'general engineering principles' that can capture the complexity of the techno-economic change a shift to lower carbon technologies may imply. Could you clarify?
With every field of study that are levels of imprecisions and these vary largely with the field of study. The degree of imprecision with regard to predictions is large with a science as climate change because of the large complexity of parameters. This doesn't mean that they didn't do a good enough job so far. Understanding the limits of the ability to predict exactly how the temperatures will increase is important. However the prognosis they made for the last 30 years seem to have been reliable enough--the increase of the temperature seems to fit well with the estimations and the big picture seems to be clear enough. It is not like the fact that computer modelling has a large degree of imprecision we could say that global warming is not real.
@@andreimustata5922 If you can't meet signal to noise requirements you can't validate. If your hypothesis says changes of temperature occur at 0.1 degrees per decade you're going to need very precise and well maintained instruments to achieved that. Not temperature readings for boat inlets, buckets and Stephenson screens with animals and beehives in them. And let's not even get started with station citing.
"The degree of imprecision with regard to predictions is large with a science as climate change because of the large complexity of parameters."
This means you can't apply it to the real world. Because if you do you are applying large assumptions as if they are fact.
"the increase of the temperature seems to fit well with the estimations"
The actual error on the temperature anomaly record is about at least +/- 1 degrees C. They make the assumptions that all errors are random for all instruments which would fail basic validation in any field. All the modelled variation and the variation itself is noise.
@@johnsawdonify The belief that man-made CO2 is causing significant heating is the basis for then insisting that you need to "lower carbon". If CO2 rising is no threat, which is the current null hypothesis that has not been shown to be incorrect, then why would you worry about lower carbon technologies and the shift to it? If you believe hypothesis can be applied directly to the real world then you should be equally working on liability policies for Santa Claus in case he slips on a roof on Christmas Eve.
@@michaelcorbett4236 The fact that you can't be sure about your prediction doesn't mean that you can't apply it to the world, or that they are meaningless. You cannot know the future, nobody ever did, but you might understand certain principles which are essential for the dynamic involved. Point in case there is no doubt either about the increase of CO_2 nor about its effect on the temperature increase of the planet.
You might have doubts about the information collected data but when both the data that we collect and the understanding of the nature that we have points to the same thing it seems to me crazy to say that we don't know what is going on. The data that we have should be carefully looked into and I think that Lovelock was right that investment in careful measurement of data is very important.
There are serious debates about the use of computer modelling and their limitations, but these are related to the fine points on how well we are able to understand and predict not in the overall nature of what is going to happen.
You're halfway there John. Do some more digging and the whole climate change nonsense will unravel.
Oh my Goodness!
Finally someone talking sense!!
We need a working Transition, not Green fascism!
Start with free working public transport, if you want to get people out of their cars!
Its a public Good & will actually cut polution!🌏💛
🕊🕊🕊
Even if public transit was free I still wouldn't want to use it. Mostly due to the dangers of other crazies using it. Stabbings assaults, muggings no thanks.
"Free" still means we pay, unless you are talking about reintroducing slavery.
@stevemarshall3986 no problem, but alot of folks would, especially if parking a nightmare in town.
& I don't know where you live. But if public transports that bad, it'll need sorting out...these are some of the positives we can get!🕊
@@martinliehs2513no, free as in A Public Good.
We already paying for these dud emissions schemes.
Keys pay for one that actually improves All Our Lives!🕊
4:20 "The world is burning but people have their electric heaters on" uhhh okay?
What a breath of fresh air he is, pragmatic, realistic of limitations & the sad state of our political leaders & the revolts required to dethrone the madness! Love this man can we elect him … can’t get worst right & he’s funny ❤
When a battery stops being useful the components can never be a battery again , what percentage of the work a battery can do in its life needs to go into replacing it ?
I thought they could be recycled? I mean a lithium-ion battery has lithium in much higher concentrations than the minerals it is refined from, don't they? Surely it is easier to obtain lithium from recycled batteries than through mining?
I’m sorry that is not true. Electric vehicle batteries can be reused for other purposes after the car has been scrapped - e.g. in homes to store electricity overnight when supply exceeds demand. Batteries can be recycled and elements such as Lithium recovered from them. This is already done today and the recycling process will be improved over time.
There are "greener" ways to store energy
Net zero means billions less people. They are salivating at this.
One of the best, most reasonable, balanced, rational conversations I've viewed in a long time even on this channel. Excellent.
Where is full episode?
I’m not so sure climate change is primarily human caused anymore. Most of my life I have but I’m realising how tiny how output is compared with the sun and how impossible climate science is to do. Not saying we don’t need to chill at and stop polluting but I’m sick of how similar environmentalists have become to the Catholic Church with original sin and the apocalypse and the endless tolls for you soul. We have the same model with new metaphysics
As a catholic I will say the church's teachings fills me with hope not fear as you suggested, and I'm used to the ignorant misrepresentations. That been said, what I have came to understand is that the learned and scholarly have serious conceptual problems blocking their perceptual lives.
The amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is only 0.04%.
Purchased Catholic indulgences have been replaced by purchased carbon off-setting.
@@davidboult4143 hmm didn't know that the climate emergency started in the 14 century.
@@outoforbit- I'm not attacking religious faith but pointing out how much faith is in the new model of the apocalypse. The nuance and uncertainty of science vanishes by the times its wielded (increasingly against the citizen) by governments. So many complain about loss of faith in science but its the faith in the way its used and talked about by technocrats that declines. Look what the medieval and renaissance popes did to people's faith in God? Luther and Calvan and the division of a thousand sects are the fruits of such political exploitation. So it goes with our technocratic high priests who claim to work for the greater good and the Goddess Earth.
The climate is always changing, with or without man’s influence. Co2 levels have been far higher in the past, as regards to warming, if you build a big concrete city where there was once a forest you will definitely change the temperature in that zone, whether man can change the temperature of the earth is debatable.
Also, we can’t predict the weather 10 days ahead so we have no chance of predicting CLIMATE years into the future full stop.
Surely you realize how risible these statements are as responses to the theory of global heating adduced by people who have made it their life's work to consume and comprehend the sum total of human knowledge about climate and to develop that knowledge further.
The climate changes for a reason. Currently the planet is warming rapidly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
@@jamesmorrow1646Actually, it's the Sun that causes the warming (the nearest star, not the newspaper). CO2 is irrelevant, as we can see from the historical data where CO2 levels have been four or five times higher than they are now, with no effects on temperature. The sun is currently putting out more heat than usual, but it won't last long...
1) people are always moving about - and have done since time began, silly! + 2) falling off this cliff is moving about = 3) honestly, what is all this fuss about falling off this cliff? Some people!
This is where me and friends who used to care so much about global warming are, the proposed solutions are garbage... I guess we are further, we don't care anymore and we get annoyed by those who insist on calling this an emergency.
Yes that is the tragedy. And if you doubt the narrative you are now considered to be an Infidel. Oh, and likely a far right conspiracy theorist. That's the current binary system in which classic liberal, left leaning skeptics are now labeled, flagged and tarnished. Profoundly sad..
"I'm not a climate skeptic, I'm a disciple in that regard." - a religious philosopher
Indeed😉
Exactly. Ironically he is just another full agent of the absurdity era.
Every time some alarmist present you "evidence", you should try to look for the signs of manipulation. Scaled up graphs, color schemes, tricks with comparisons, the cherry picking of periods, the wording, and so on. Then also question, what data is the base of the claims (details matter a lot), as your can proove just about anything by picking the right data; and on top of that be aware that almost all the data are not actual temperature measurements, they are many varieties of data manipulation such as approximation, averaging and picking, combined with models and other theoretical additions. There are many things to pick from to invent your "proof", ice cores, tree rings, upper/lower atmosphere, tropical, arctic, localized, sea temperature, many of these are modelled not actual observations.
Also localized data is often used, for example "the hottest day since we began measuring" can mean, this weather station was set up in 2005 and this is the hottest it has ever recorded (which isn't factually false, but the message is); or it can be that there was the hottest over a cherry picked period (still local). Also all the places where there has been colder than usual, do you ever hear about those ? they are the ones that pull down the average (global) temperature and the reason we are factually not seing alarming global temperature rise.
Also check your own bias, are you one of those who think because you remember your childhood having cold winters and this one there were hardly any snow, and use that as proof ? It is not scientific, it is not proof, and it might not even be correct because our memory is far from reliable.
Climate alarmism is not science and certainly not fact. It is a data manipulation business, they are starting with the conclusion and creating and picking data to support it.
Most of it is easily debunkable, with all kinds of holes in the logic and conclusions, some is somewhat plausable as a theory but lack enough knowledge to be considered proof.
With the amount and size of lies and manipulations you will catch them in if you start paying attention to details and counter arguments; your fraud alarm bells should be ringing loudly .. the same alarm bells that rings when the Nigerian prince wants to give you all his money locked away in a bank account.
Well said. Or, as far as your last sentence is concerned, " You must socially isolate, but you can go to the supermarket."
9:13 Also the flooding theories of coastal areas are flawed. Because the north pole consists of floating ice which when melting does not change one inch in the sea level. And the south pole is not melting.
Now I am not an official scientist with a PhD, fortunately otherwise I would be ashamed about my profession.
Cringeworthy .... the models have been proven to be wrong time and time and .... time again. When the people peddling the sea level rising scares are buying sea front properties quite literally AT SEA LEVEL, then you know they are lying about something. Still yet to see the poles shrink and any actual statistically significant extreme weather events. A casual glance at the data is sufficient to see if anything, things have gotten better. What has intensified is the reporting of events that we would once have never have heard about.
Antarctica lost an area of 1 1/2 million square kilometres of sea ice above normal this winter. The sea level is rising.
@@amraceway
Where?
Sea levels are rising and they're falling just as they always have and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'climate change', in parts of Northern Europe sea levels are falling as the great land masses slowly recover after having gigatons of ice press them down during the last major ice age just 10000 years ago, elsewhere sea levels are rising as continents shift and groan.
The Maldives, which according to eco alarmist clowns should have sunk in the 90's have recently finished building a new international airport to cater for its growing population and growing tourism.
Show me exactly where 'climate change' is causing sea levels to rise.
Antarctica doesn't have sea ice, only the Arctic has sea ice, ie frozen sea water and the Arctic is doing just fine, as someone who has been there twice and the Antarctic 5 times please trust me on this.
Antarctica is a land mass from which glaciers calve into the sea just as they always have, it's currently -27 average which is completely normal but over the past 6 months this last Antarctic winter has been the coldest on record.
Please desist posting completely unwarranted alarmist drivel.
This is all great news, you should rejoice and thank me for telling you but I suspect you won't because these cold stark facts do not fit your alarmist narrative.
@@antonrudenham3259 Obviously as the sea is not flat there will be variations but as water warms it expands and it is getting hotter. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature As the biggest factor in climate is sea temperature as it gets hotter things will change.The loss of sea ice in Antarctica is a worry as thousands of immature penguins drowned due to melting ice. However don't panic as nothing will change human behaviour , either mine or yours ,so que sera, sera.
@@amracewaythey haven't though have they 😂😂 more childish scaremongering..thats all ecofreaks have
@@antonrudenham3259thank you. Very interesting.
Excellent as always. The normalisation of civil disobedience starts to feel like a poll tax moment.
Excellent in what way? This guy completepy buys into the global warming nonsense to the point of being hysterical. I have a few ideas what this kind of idiocy could lead to. They want to take away our heat and food and mobility. Hope you like cricket powder and the cold.
Freddie looks younger each time I tune in. It's very disheartening for the rest of us😂
Money often does that to you
Finally someone being honest. Adapt or die🇨🇦
What about my personal experience that the climate has not changed? Ignore that? Really? Well, no.
Climate change is a constant. Only a fool would deny that.
Our rush to be the first country to achieve net zero has resulted in vertually nothing is made in England anymore. Trying to find clothes ,shoes furniture that's affordable will result in them beimade elsewhere.
Climate has always changed for better or worse. We just have to adapt, ourselves, as individuals. The technocrats and politicians aint gonna ‘solve’ shit. Humans have endured climatic extremes for millennia and thrived. Lets just move on.
Adaptation is not enough when we are the cause of the change. As long as we adapt we will increase the changes till we will not be able to adapt anymore. Life is adaptable but only in certain limits.
@@andreimustata5922 To think human emitted carbon, is the primary driver of Earth's climatic fluctuations is preschooler level thinking. Bravo!
@@ashthegreat1 Insults seem to be a good way to avoid seeing the facts
@@andreimustata5922another way of avoiding facts is the ability to cancel anyone with an opposing view. If your facts were true, then they would welcome the challenge.
@@charlesoleary3066 Who is cancelling whom? Please proceed with. your challenge. The fact that there is not the same weight given to scientific clear facts and amateurs not knowing what they talk about is not cancelling. It is true tha there is also a lot of propaganda related with climate change but this doesn't make the basic facts untrue.
Couldn't agree more with this. I live in Norway and with more authoritarian control policies on the way it's more about appearing to do something rather than anything else. Green washing and as always it's the low income people thats affected the most.
All the clear, quantified, and solvable problems in this world, and here we are obsessing over the implausible scenario of "runaway climate change".
The reason they call it climate change is so we think it's real.
But everyone knows the climate changes. This has nothing to do with man.
Why are they not calling it what they claim it actually is?
Manmade climate change?
Because nobody would take them seriously because the concept is ABSURD.
Implausible? Your lack of education doesn’t need to be displayed so publicly chief. Best to keep that sort of numb-skullery in the privacy of your home. less embarrassing.
Firstly the world is not burning. Second we can Adapt and survive. Governments are prepared to sacrifice people alive now for someone who might exist in the future.
The idea that less than 200 years of industrial development, which occurred in a very small percentage of the land on earth, could affect the atmosphere and climate of the whole world is absurd. 71% WATER 29% LAND and most of the land is empty. perspective is badly needed here, not the myopic narcissism of those who think they know everything.
I think you need to buy into the fact that a climate alarmism is a way overstated. And the issues are nowhere near as bad as they are made out to be.
As an earth scientist, it is clear to me that the mathematical models of climate are ridiculously simple and totally unreliable. Natural variation in climate is totally ignored and makes the outcomes totally irrelevant. Bastardization of the temperature record over the last 100 years has also made the predictions look far worse than they are.
That open mind of yours is a precious (and scarce) resource. Keep asking the questions 👍
Perhaps the risk of World War III down the road might be a much more urgent and easer issue to address.
If the world was burning you wouldn't need to turn down your heating because you'd have no need for heating!
The world is burning. We need to fix the water cycles and the soil sponge. #savesoil
wtf are you talking about, ignorant
@@NaMe-ku4cl holisticism
John Gray has absolutely hit the nail on the head: this is another form of irrational Abolitionism.
We didnt stop it, we cant effect it.
The politics of narcissism is a good term though
Fact: Humans can't predict the weather three months out.
Yet we're supposed to believe that 'black-box' computer models can predict what will happen in a century!!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@gendunchoepel3480 If the people who purporting to predict the climate in ten years are using the methods that are not accurate at thirty days to predict the weather, then we should ignore them.
He's spot on about climate scientists putting too much faith in models and not measuring enough, even where it is cheap and low cost. But I see no reason why it could not go the other way and be better than they predicted. Also I think we will have time to react. There is also a Russian theory of climate science that says the changing forest locations are affecting the likes of the gulf stream etc and cause more severe weather in places. This is because each tree breathes and together they create wind. It needs looking into. As do other theories. As does if we have more time to react - to wait and see. Too much group think in scientists (which is normal through history, it's where the term paradigm shift came from). So far - when the models have got more detailed, it predicts more climate doom. But that does not mean they are underestimating it. Different dynamics result in different resolutions in models. At a certain point it all shifts the other way, so it is a mistake to extrapolate based on increasing model resolution and more climate sensitivity.
imagine the future with only models and AI and stupid/corrupt humans...
Is the world ending ?
If it is , wats to do ?
@@phantompanther648 The world will end when you die.
@@phantompanther648humans: stop breeding.
The best predictor of global average temperature is Earth Energy Imbalance. Increase the energy imbalance and the temp will follow just like turning the heat up on a pot of water. The EEI has risen steadily since 2000 and starting around ten years ago the global average temp accelerated. The record high EEI in 2023 guarantees that much more heating is on the way and fast.
Carbon does not control climate...carbon is life...thinking humans can control climate is the ultimate in egotistical narcissism.
I’ve been searching daily for Gray’s name in CZcams since The New Leviathans came out
first question presumes we are able to 'look back'. i doubt we will either be able to look back, or be 'allowed' to laugh at certain subjects by a future date - given where we are all be herded towards. if you havent noticed there is no logic or science today - everything is driven top down with certain goals in mind, with nothing being properly considered.
The word "science" is frequently misused in politics to push certain agendas.
We also saw this during the "so-called" corona crisis.
The infantilisation of society
Great comments. We need to prepare our country for the changes that could envelope us because our 1% contribution to the problem if we eliminated it would not stop our country being overwhelmed. We need to protect ourselves not try to solve the problem. It's just a waste of real effort.
We plebs are actually the carbon which red-green fascists want a final solution for...
John Nicholas Gray is an English political philosopher and author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has written several books on politics and philosophy, including
False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is unstable and is in the process of collapsing,
Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religious ideologies, and
Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of Utopian thinking in the modern world.
Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray writes that
'humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them.'
Thanks for that info as I had never heard of him before, but listening to him here I did wonder if he had serious conceptual problems blocking his perceptual life.
Do either of you have any specific issues with his talk? Or are you trawling for ad hom insinuations of unsavouriness, as often seems to pass for intellectual critique these days?
@@tbayley6 I would make the same comment for the majority of the so-called 'scholarship' coming out of academies nowadays.
@@outoforbit- I'm still none the wiser about what you thought was wrong with his talk.
@@tbayley6 he made valid observations, but I don't see that he has an overall perspective, well in this talk anyway. There are many academics with understandable critiques but beyond that it isn't clear what ground they are standing on, if any.
In my opinion, the absence of a clear moral sensibility is the heart of the matter. It's the foundation to build on. Now morality isn't a concept made up by humans, and believing it to be such ends up with the absurd notion that is now prevalent and indeed propagated, that my truth is my truth and yours is yours, which is basically chaos. Morality exists already in the structure of reality, we ignore it at our peril. For example, a 3 year old witnessing the beating of an animal knows it's wrong, nobody needs to tell the 3 year old.
Interesting, but he gets two huge things wrong in his attack on mainstream climate policy.
1. Renewables are good for jobs. According to the 2019 U.S. Energy & Employment Report, in 2018 there were 2.4 million jobs in clean energy generation and energy efficiency, compared to half that many in fossil energy production. This is great for the economy, the climate and the political legitimacy of climate action, and the dramatic efficiency gains of renewables in the last decade have been driven by massive investment encouraged by governments.
2. It makes a massive difference whether or not we reduce (or increase!) emissions. Clearly much warming is locked in, but how much and how fast? That's up to us. Adaptation is a secondary consideration; after all, how far should coastal communities retreat to escape rising seas, if we never stop making them rise? What other impacts should we adapt to? If we never mitigate then we will have to adapt forever until it's not possible any more and civilisation itself becomes impossible.
we are at dangerously low levels of CO2 as it is. were at .043% and plants stop growing at .03%. That would wipe out humanity.
I think the actual stop point is 0.018% but I could be wrong. But your point stands. We're perilously close to having so little CO2 in the atmosphere as to cause the extinction of all life on earth.
Rush Limbaugh said that the right measures by results while the left measures by intent. Even if the results are catastrophic if the initial intentions were aligned with the emotional left then it isn’t ever going to be considered a failure in their eyes.
This was an outstanding clip. Freddie, please can you do a show on The Longhouse? A number of guests come to mind.
2:33 Wind turbine sure is job creative because of the upkeep.
I remember dozens of employees picking up pieces of paper in the English subway stations or taking in used tickets one by one just to provide for employment. Surely the cost was not comparable with the output.
Wind turbines need switchgear. The gases needed in their construction are incredibly damaging to the atmosphere. Far, far, more than co2.
The Guardian....about the new book.....
"The philosopher falls back on generalities and sketches of oddballs in his latest, sometimes frenzied assault on liberalism and humanity"
Me......must check this out :) , "The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths" was great uplifting fun
David Starkey, then Lord Sumption now John Gray all calling for Proportional Representation. It’s the only way we will get any change now.
Vote reform
At 2019 levels it will take 100 to 1000's of years to mine enough minerals to go net zero by... 2050.
It is quite unlikely that we experience runaway climate change. Most of the trends in climate sensitivity assessments in peer reviewed literature are actually toward lower levels. This year's big climate events weren't mainly driven by climate change, but instead by an extremely unusual ENSO condition.
But he's absolutely right that imposition of regulation that prevents people from carrying out their lives isn't sustainable. It leads them to eventually revolt. It follows that the best way to reduce climate change is to replace fuels, not to force people to stop using fuel.
Yes, i don't know why John Grey choses to believe that things are far worse than even the IPCC reports say. It seems like blind faith in what some of his friends are saying. Hardly scientific.
None of the climate evets were unique, go back further enough in history and you will find mirror images and worse
'this year's climate events' - perhaps you meant weather events?
Bang on. Great insights.
Apparently, here in the UK, wind turbines are going to get so cheap, they only need electricity prices to rise by 70% to pay for them! Mmm, bargain. Friday morning when I got up, it was pitch dark, so no input from solar, and zero wind (so heavy mist). Contribution from these two was therefore zero. That must be the Net Zero I hear so much about. There cannot be runaway climate change - the climate system works on negative feedbacks.
All the models run hot, we know this because we know the ground temperature record, and satellite temperature data, so how could he possibly say they're underestimating the models!?
The issue with the models isn’t whether they are underestimating or overestimating climate change….it’s that without the empirical measurement you suggested they aren’t scientific at all. The scientific method is *not* rooted in models alone (whether hypotheses OR predictive tools) but rather on empirical confirmation of models. Without this, you simply don’t have science. Further, there must be a more rigorous attempt to stabilize our measurements temporally (to account for measurement device variation, urban heat island zones, changes in emissivity, etc.) or our attempts at empirical confirmation will be skewed.
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
- The speaker is skeptical about the effectiveness of net zero plans and conventional green policies.
- The infrastructure and technology necessary for these policies were not in place when they were launched.
- Many of the raw materials needed for green initiatives are controlled by China and Africa.
- The economic costs of green programs were not properly assessed.
- The speaker believes that focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation is necessary.
- The speaker suggests that runaway climate change may already be happening and cannot be stopped.
- The speaker criticizes the reliance on models and the lack of empirical data in climate science.
- Technocratic pragmatism is ineffective and disrupts the lives and incomes of many people.
- The speaker predicts that the implementation of green policies may lead to social unrest and riots.
- The speaker suggests that electoral reform and the creation of new political parties may be a solution.
1:55 The net zero policy of course is in great contrast to the fact now (after four decades) the percentage of green energy still is only about 7% of the total. Which is fossil.
So no effect has been realized, while solar and wind for instance (or nuclear) as alternatives are known by science for at least five decades. So the argument of batteries to be honest is quite besides the point.
Are you capable of thinking?
Agree with some of what Gray says, but totally disagree with runaway climate change due to human induced factors.
Overall, he didn't make a great deal of sense.
Anyone who can't pronounce nuclear (says NuKuLar) clearly can't think clearly!!!😂
He keeps saying we underestimate the rate of climate change, when the data is crystal clear that our models have significantly overestimated reality.
Spending money on adapting to climate change rather than wasting money on net zero is pretty much the only thing I really agreed with.
adapt to what? look at the temperature gradient for the North Sea over the last 20 years and you will sea there is none, flat as a pancake. if you disallow debate and allow cherry picking you can convince people of anything. like the need for adaptation.
net zero is ALL about the money. There are those who always capitalise on real and perceived crisis. It is a sham
Agree with his main point. I say to all CO2 obsessives: if we could do nothing about this co2 rise (i.e. it was from increased volcanic activity), what would you do to protect us? Let's do that.
One of the biggest producers of co2, humans breathing.
@@davidboult4143 and plants and insects and algae. And ants
@@jonesalex565 No, plants take in co2, and breathe out oxygen. Did you play truant from school often?
@@davidboult4143maybe not what the other person was talking about, but plants do release carbon dioxide through the processes of respiration and photorespiration.
@@tmacfan532 did you mean photosynthesis?
Such a joy to hear some talk sense and drop the nonsensical group and camp think.
Narcissistic self righteousness is an expression of helplessness. And we have seen in the past which dynamics can be triggered, if enough fuel is given to that fire.
It needs more adults. And that requires the young asking the questions, the older to listen and get inspired to explore together and then lead decision making.
An Age of Absurdity, in part - but certainly an age of pre-modern animist belief. Chants, mantras, and totems to appease the climate gods, rather than science and rationalism. In my country we're spending 8% on the consequences of the last enormous storm, on 9 months ago. This may repeat more often than our past experience. So, rational public policy and budgeting says set the mitigation dial to "nudge" and the adaptation dial to Max, and engage in managed retreat. We can't do both in a small country, no matter how much handwavium about distributional consequences and "playing our part". It's utter nonsense. The only people who say "do both" are people who cannot conceive of hard budget constraints. THAT is our finite world.