Want to brush up your maths and science knowledge? Check out the courses on Brilliant. First 30 days are free and you’ll get 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ https://brilliant.org/sabine.
I suffered through an 80 mins lecture by Nobel Prize winner John F Clauser so that you don’t have to. He calls climate change a “myth” and insists that climate scientists are “dishonest” and “clueless.” It’s frankly embarrassing he goes on about this, as climate scientists have told him multiple times that it’s trivially wrong. I want to put this out there so that anyone who gets questions about it has an easy way to answer them.
You can watch the entire talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjoPBMtSxpU
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ http://quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
🖼️ On instagram ➜ https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#science #climatechange
44 Comments
Earth will continue humans are f*** it's that simple
Humans took a Paradise and put up a parking lot it's that simple humans screwed up the planet big time too many humans not enough trees
…another scapegoat hero…yay….yawn.
Humans are on the short list of Extinction
10/10 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Sabine should have "picked" the nobel prize winner Al Gore.
I PICK the data manipulation of the famous hockey stick curve in order to expose the climate change hoax. This is, what Prof. Phil Jones and Prof. Michael Mann (both IPCC) did, in order to hide the decline in temperature in the early 2000s. They used tree ring data instead of measurement data.
IPCC is not about science but political.
PS I bet, that the comment section is full with global warming fans.
Popcorn is not good for your health and more lethal than global warming. So I snacked on steak. 😂😂
My two takeaways from this cluster f*** ck of a hypothesis is that big oil is behind the falsified data and that JFC is right in just one very interesting regard when he, with no irony whatsoever, states that the "planet" is not in peril. Correct. The planet will survive. Because the planet will shake off the human virus and all animal and plant life will become extinct.
What's also interesting is the likes and dislikes percentages. 29K versus 2K. I think that works out to around 14% of people / views are taken in by the idiot.
That poor physicist seems to have difficulty speaking. I think you could find any number of physicist to debate, that claim Global warming is not produced by humans. Why don’t you?
I'd be interested in hearing your critique of another climate critic, Steven Koonin, who was interviewed on the Hoover Institution channel:
"Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l90FpjPGLBE
Humans lived through ice ages and much warmer times than today. Even the dinosaurs lived through hotter climates. Climate change is a man made problem that is not a problem we can affect. If you said you could change the weather 50 years ago, you would be considered insane.
I still think of the age of the earth. Geologists and paleontologists observed and tracked a number of phenomena and concluded that the earth was quite old – that deposited sediments showed a slow change over time as animals and plants evolved. They did not have an exact age but by the late 19th century, they posited a very long time. But…. the physicists (like Lord Kelvin) had data and a model that disagreed with all this. Over time even physicists learned something and so now Lord Kelvin's arrogance has been disproven. Physicists are great on mathematical relationships. But that is all. I would not want one to design my house.
Yes, he is correct, climate change is a total myth.
16:43 – Cloud albido depends on cloud thickness
Cloud libido depends on cloud thiccness
"The world is going to end" : brought to you by scientists since, well forever.
Über Scham zu reden ist hier ein wichtiger Ansatz. Wenn 'man' festestellt über einen längeren Zeitraum einen fundamental falschen Weg eingeschlagen zu haben ist 'man' vermutlich von tiefer und sehr schmerzhafter Scham gegenüber sich selbst bedroht. Die neue Realität erfüllt einen nun mit unerträglicher Vernichtungsangst, weil nicht vorhergesehene Probleme bewältigt werden müssen. Das führt zu kognitiver Erstarrung. Ein wichtiges psychologisches Element in jeder politischen Auseinandersetzung, wie ich glaube festgestellt zu haben.
Yeah, I work for an airline and ALL my co workers agree
An economist can tell you about metals and crystals. Useful depending on what info you're after. Climate change is expensive. Military studying effects of climate change intensely for decades.
Btw, Fremdscham = vicarious embarrassment
Thanks for this video!
Thanks!
Excellent, thank you.
It is just amazing how stupid smart people can be. We should always keep that in mind when looking to famous personalities or just the next door role model type.
Well – that’s two a$$holes!!!
The thing is, there is no climate crisis which is being caused by humans, which we cannot sort through.
Alarmists do themselves no favors by dabbling in lies, of course; climate gate comes to mind, as well as "environmentalists" starting "wildfires" to raise awareness about them.
Now, even steelmanning the alarmist position gives no reason to treat the warming we see as catastrophic.
Sticking to the facts:
We have seen no increase in number or intensity of wildfires, storms, or earthquakes. This is something easily researched, compared to other facts, but still seems to be a go-to lie for alarmists.
We DO see warming, and such caused by our actions, which do affect our planet, though, and eventually couod cause most surface ice to be melted, barring some elevation ice caps.
This melting, should it occur in totality, would still not be catastrophic, as any affected areas could easily be evacuated in time.
Most alarmists dont seem to think much of this isseu as immediate, though, seeing how many of them have invested in beachfront property which would be underwater before their heirs could sell it and move inland.
However, one notable affect of increasing atmospheric CO2 has been the greening of our planet in many places; numerous researchers and activitists have been reversing desertification, which is possible thabks to the effect on plants increased CO2 levels has.
So if we arent going to flood oursleves to death, burn our forests down wholesale, and generate record breaking storms multiple times per year, what is the worst case scenario?
Worst case does not seem to be the warming we observe, and since the odds of it being runaway warming depend on us also eradicating plant life, we should be fairly secure.
However there does remain a "zero-world".
Mutually assured nuclear exchange, which wouod lead to nuclear winter and a horrific devastation all around, even beyond the explosions and radiation.
The second would be any change to policy which wouid cause a reversing, cooling- affect.
The only thing worse than dealing with warming would be to deal with the descent into another glacial maximum.
After all, we are still in an ice age.
Dont get me wrong, im all for research into alternatives to fossil fuels and such, just not because i see them as devastating in themselves.
They're simply a limited resource. One day we wont have them and all the benefits they bestow through the mighty conduits of electricity.
However, our current stock of renewables are much too poor a replacement.
For one, the renewable energy industry is entirely dependent on fossil fuels to begin with.
You cannot get solar panels and wind turbines or geothermal systems without mining, refining, production, fabrication, distribution, repair, and replacement, all of which are fueled by oil and natural gas. Dont forget we wont have that one day.
One thing to our favor more than much else will be the imminent population collapse.
An economic detriment in the short term, it will make energy consumption decline, and if we combine that with increasing efficiency, we'll probably get out of this optimally, not just ok.
You know nothing.
What happened to the Laurentide Ice Sheet? Coverd all of Canada and a third of the States- What happened? The SUN and GRAVITY – no matter who you vote for it AIN'T going away.
18:17 is just a mood
Manmade climate change is utterly without empirical support.
Climate change generates a lot of lies, distortions, untruths or withholding/concealing information. Both sides will participate in this. But it is the alarmists who have all the appearances against them, rightly so.
After the scientific community was caught lying about covid to support the medical industrial complex and global authoritarian regimes, how can anybody trust 'scientific consensus'. If you lie about covid, you get paid. If you lie about climate, it would also stand to reason that your paper and study will get funded.
I was hoping to change my mind from this vid but there were huge gaps in the logic. If we don't know that climate change is 1)manmade, 2) happening because of co2 and 3) going at the alarming rate, then don't lie and say we are in a climate disaster. North america used to be under a giant glacier. It warmed up and the ice melted.
We all agree that climate changes, but only some are being paid by our government for coming to a specific conclusion about it (and guess what, it means that those governments increase their budget and power!).
This woman is either a very uninformed person, or is outright lying. "Climate Change" is a HOAX. Tony Heller can educate her if she is willing to learn.
The behavior of clouds and the water cycle is indeed very complicated and hard to figure out, which makes predictions of the climate difficult. But climate scientists or their political climate advocates gloss over this in their communications with the public. There is much more uncertainty in their forecasts than they let on.
I think at this point we are well past the stage where we just say, "Oh, their scientists. Surely they know what they are talking about." But this is where Sabina is at.
No. we don't just blindly trust them, and that goes for all of science.
the dangerous thing of saying all this, it would imply, oh, so all the masspolution we are currently exposing the planet to is no that bad after all, see, lets just keep going as it is…
many would think this way⹁
however even if there was a significant impact, it would not be big enough for enough places in the world to change any type of capitalist lifestyle,
while there is a significant impact, notices it myself in stranger weather where i live, it is not enough to globally change our ways
so myth or not, it does not change anything
I do not think so, his ideas are embarrassing. Embarrassing is actually the way how to discuss with him.
Could not climate change have positive effects on humanity over the long term?
This guy just sounds like he's got a screw loose. It doesn't make for confidence in what he is saying.
Bit of a bummer when a blasphemer says what we dont want to hear
Perhaps if John F Clauser would spend some time observing the rising oceans…
Pff. As a regular Joe, what I'm seeing is that she's as unconvincing as it appears (from the cuts that she's shown) he is. It's a net zero.
Embarrassing because they don't align with yours?
y not mention how all the scary predictions climate scientists made have not happenedi in the least…….why so way off?
7:40 😭😭
Ad hominem attacks aren’t a thorough review. Snide comments don’t replace rigor. Scientists who earn a living serving orthodoxy know the penalty for heresy.