Well said. Now, let's change to raw temperature data not "adjusted" by climate alarmists, and stop including solar forcing to climate computer models as man-made pressures. Let's also stop calling climate science 'settled' or 'unquestionable' for as long as the very definition of the word 'science' involves asking questions.
Sorry dude, your fossil fuel funding has been discontinued. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the industry has moved on from questioning the science. Didn't get the memo?
@@carlbennett2417, Your support of record-high inflation, skyrocketing grocery and fuel costs, open borders, and rampant crime, reveals who you really are. Burning fossil fuels doesn't control weather! Non-tampered historical scientific data proves this. It also proves Earth's climate is more complicated and resilient than the climate alarmist's con-men can comprehend.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο, Now, let's change to raw temperature data not "adjusted" by climate alarmists, and stop including cosmic and solar forcing to climate computer models as man-made pressures. Let's also stop calling climate science 'settled' or 'unquestionable' for as long as the very definition of the word 'science' involves asking questions.
This presentation is so important, and extremely helpful! Yes, I completely agree: ordinary citizens do not understand complicated reports, they understand what they can experience. We have to change the language we use when we are talikng about climate change.
Thank you Jes, for your wisdom, your passion and advice. If every person takes small positive steps to conserve and reduce our use of resources, it can lead to a giant change in how society, as a whole, views and approaches this potential cataclysmic catastrophe. Instead of carbon dioxide molecules radiating heat for eons of time, let each of us become points of concern, radiating knowledge and serving as examples for others to model. "Be the change you want to see in the world." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Perhaps we need to change the way we think about climate change. That is, maybe it's not something human's need to solve, but rather it's something that will solve us. 🙂
aerosols , heat islands , land use , population growth : many human activities effect climate . co2 certainly demonstrably greens the planet . significantly warms the planet ? maybe , maybe not .
Talking to a climate change deniar is in most cases like talking to a flat earther. It really does not matter too much what you say. If someone does not want to believe in something there is almost no way you can convince that person. Unfortunately different sources have plowed those false beliefs so deep into the mind of many people that it is almost impossible to get them out of there.
@Kent Horvath Well first of all it does not really seem as if you are responding to me. That said yeah it is true. Sadly people all around the world keep being sceptic about very strong evidence that only shows one scientific conclusion: that the recent abrupt change in temperatures is mostly caused by human activity. Where you have trouble understanding is where those beliefs come from. Those are beliefs mainly influenced by a big propaganda machinery set off by fossil fuel companies. You know after all it does not matter what people tend to believe or not. After all it matters what scientifc evidence points to. Just to put that into context: People tend to believe an engagement ring needs to cost two salaries. Where does that belief come from? Well it originated from a large ad campaign started by De Beers back in the 30´s. And those same companies are now working on trying to make you not trust science when you do that in every other field. And they are pretty effective at that. Hopefully you will be able to break the cycle.
@Kent Horvath You debunked 150 years of climate science and thousands of peer reviewed papers in the field. Congrats! I will personally recommend you for a nobel price. Unfortunately it seems having a higher education in an elite university makes you not more receptable to the concept of relying on expertise when your not an expert in the field yourself. Or logic or grammar for that matter. And that´s what really is pathetic here.
The narrative has changed constantly. It has to for the simple reason that the date of terminus has to change so that people won’t get wise to the game.
Lead by example or people will simply ignore you. Now having said that, who had more credibility President Carter when dealing with the energy crisis or President Obama's and climate change? Who lead by example and who didn't?
It's hard to have a conversation on climate change when scientists never explain why the earth started to warm after the last ice age and the one before that and the one before that, all without the help of man. When they fail to this it's hard to understanding why we're taking the blame for the warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. We know that the earth was warmer at the peak of last warming periods than it is today and that the sea level was 25' higher at the peak of the last warming period. That happened without the aid of man. What we should be doing is preparing for the inevitable sea level rise that's coming and stop selling snake oil about man being able to stop it.
Its easy to find out why but you will never find things directly under the category, but more like stumble across them. The reason why so many people keep there mouths shut, I don’t know.
Okay, I'll lead with solutions: 1) Live on half of what you do now, 2) Vote for government to tax and ration resources, 3) Run America and Europe into the ground while China and maybe Africa catches up, 4) Socialism, like 97% of scientists have always wanted for every problem, from nuclear weapons to overpopulation and the "energy crisis". Yes, leading with solutions will influence people. Europeans love socialism because they like taking orders and just because average Americans don't.
Stumbled on this late. That doesn’t change the fact that global warming, er climate change, er climate catastrophe is politics. Not science. If you change the name of your science fair project three times you do get a failing grade.
The 2009 drought she talked about, where the pine beetles blighted the trees? That infestation could have been prevented but for the actions of environmentalists like her that need a sad picture to tug at your heartstrings with. Thinning trees in some areas to act as a break would have insured that the blight was contained and the trees left standing had sufficient water to fend off the onslaught of the beetles. Cool story, now go lay down.
Georgia Arg In the 70s it was an Ice Age then it went to acid rain then it went to climate change that wording wasn’t good enough so they say global warming and you want me to believe these idiots
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Global warming is an effect of climate change. The earth is warming. Humans are changing the climate because of increased co2 in the atmosphere.
The Greenhouse Gas effect has been understood in its basic forms since the 1880s. Do you also deny Evolution like many American climate change deniers ?
Ms. Thompson is so charismatic! Thank you for a good talk.
Well said. Now, let's change to raw temperature data not "adjusted" by climate alarmists, and stop including solar forcing to climate computer models as man-made pressures. Let's also stop calling climate science 'settled' or 'unquestionable' for as long as the very definition of the word 'science' involves asking questions.
Sorry dude, your fossil fuel funding has been discontinued. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the industry has moved on from questioning the science. Didn't get the memo?
@@carlbennett2417, Your support of record-high inflation, skyrocketing grocery and fuel costs, open borders, and rampant crime, reveals who you really are. Burning fossil fuels doesn't control weather! Non-tampered historical scientific data proves this. It also proves Earth's climate is more complicated and resilient than the climate alarmist's con-men can comprehend.
Let's change the way we talk about climate change by not always answering the problem with totalitarianism.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο, Now, let's change to raw temperature data not "adjusted" by climate alarmists, and stop including cosmic and solar forcing to climate computer models as man-made pressures. Let's also stop calling climate science 'settled' or 'unquestionable' for as long as the very definition of the word 'science' involves asking questions.
This presentation is so important, and extremely helpful! Yes, I completely agree: ordinary citizens do not understand complicated reports, they understand what they can experience. We have to change the language we use when we are talikng about climate change.
Thank you Jes, for your wisdom, your passion and advice. If every person takes small positive steps to conserve and reduce our use of resources, it can lead to a giant change in how society, as a whole, views and approaches this potential cataclysmic catastrophe. Instead of carbon dioxide molecules radiating heat for eons of time, let each of us become points of concern, radiating knowledge and serving as examples for others to model.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." (Mahatma Gandhi)
phil I wish there was wisdom to be had.
She already has evidenced her bias in stead of just trying to tell both sides it's ok to have an opinion or discussion.
Perhaps we need to change the way we think about climate change. That is, maybe it's not something human's need to solve, but rather it's something that will solve us. 🙂
aerosols , heat islands , land use , population growth : many human activities effect climate . co2 certainly demonstrably greens the planet . significantly warms the planet ? maybe , maybe not .
Would you come to North Carolina and talk to some of the climate change deniers we have in this state? I would love to help you!
Would help to make climate change somehow sound more manageable?
Talking to a climate change deniar is in most cases like talking to a flat earther. It really does not matter too much what you say. If someone does not want to believe in something there is almost no way you can convince that person. Unfortunately different sources have plowed those false beliefs so deep into the mind of many people that it is almost impossible to get them out of there.
@Kent Horvath Well first of all it does not really seem as if you are responding to me. That said yeah it is true. Sadly people all around the world keep being sceptic about very strong evidence that only shows one scientific conclusion: that the recent abrupt change in temperatures is mostly caused by human activity. Where you have trouble understanding is where those beliefs come from. Those are beliefs mainly influenced by a big propaganda machinery set off by fossil fuel companies.
You know after all it does not matter what people tend to believe or not. After all it matters what scientifc evidence points to.
Just to put that into context:
People tend to believe an engagement ring needs to cost two salaries. Where does that belief come from? Well it originated from a large ad campaign started by De Beers back in the 30´s.
And those same companies are now working on trying to make you not trust science when you do that in every other field. And they are pretty effective at that. Hopefully you will be able to break the cycle.
@Kent Horvath You debunked 150 years of climate science and thousands of peer reviewed papers in the field. Congrats! I will personally recommend you for a nobel price.
Unfortunately it seems having a higher education in an elite university makes you not more receptable to the concept of relying on expertise when your not an expert in the field yourself. Or logic or grammar for that matter. And that´s what really is pathetic here.
The narrative has changed constantly.
It has to for the simple reason that the date of terminus has to change so that people won’t get wise to the game.
Why so many haters in the comments?
Intentional, funded, disinformation.
I couldn't spot any
Lead by example or people will simply ignore you. Now having said that, who had more credibility President Carter when dealing with the energy crisis or President Obama's and climate change? Who lead by example and who didn't?
Not A Nomad Carter.
Obama sewed the seeds for his party’s political ruin.
It's hard to have a conversation on climate change when scientists never explain why the earth started to warm after the last ice age and the one before that and the one before that, all without the help of man. When they fail to this it's hard to understanding why we're taking the blame for the warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. We know that the earth was warmer at the peak of last warming periods than it is today and that the sea level was 25' higher at the peak of the last warming period. That happened without the aid of man. What we should be doing is preparing for the inevitable sea level rise that's coming and stop selling snake oil about man being able to stop it.
Its easy to find out why but you will never find things directly under the category, but more like stumble across them. The reason why so many people keep there mouths shut, I don’t know.
It's simple, but climate change deniers do too deny this fact:
The earth was never heating up so rapidly. We're not facing a natural change.
Okay, I'll lead with solutions: 1) Live on half of what you do now, 2) Vote for government to tax and ration resources, 3) Run America and Europe into the ground while China and maybe Africa catches up, 4) Socialism, like 97% of scientists have always wanted for every problem, from nuclear weapons to overpopulation and the "energy crisis". Yes, leading with solutions will influence people. Europeans love socialism because they like taking orders and just because average Americans don't.
Those are not solutions, They are extra problems.
@@cardboardpow8979 yeah, it's called sarcasm 😉
Stumbled on this late. That doesn’t change the fact that global warming, er climate change, er climate catastrophe is politics. Not science.
If you change the name of your science fair project three times you do get a failing grade.
How did she get invited to speak..this entire video is regurgitating talking points
Or selling ice cream. Same shpiel - advertising 101.
Exactly.
She's a basic basicking basicness
How about no talking about it, since you or anyone can't stop it,
The 2009 drought she talked about, where the pine beetles blighted the trees?
That infestation could have been prevented but for the actions of environmentalists like her that need a sad picture to tug at your heartstrings with.
Thinning trees in some areas to act as a break would have insured that the blight was contained and the trees left standing had sufficient water to fend off the onslaught of the beetles.
Cool story, now go lay down.
Scientist tell me how much you get from government grants and I’ll tell you how much I believe you
Says someone who has absolutely no idea how scientists work...
Go open a book sir and quit watching conspiracy theory videos. Also look into dunning Kruger effect. Might help you.
Georgia Arg In the 70s it was an Ice Age then it went to acid rain then it went to climate change that wording wasn’t good enough so they say global warming and you want me to believe these idiots
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Global warming is an effect of climate change. The earth is warming. Humans are changing the climate because of increased co2 in the atmosphere.
The Greenhouse Gas effect has been understood in its basic forms since the 1880s.
Do you also deny Evolution like many American climate change deniers ?