正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

#IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report highlights how short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) impact #globalwarming and #airquality. #IPCC is producing a Methodology Report on SLCFs that will help countries identify emissions & improve air quality. IPCC Lead Author Sophie Szopa explains...

IPCC

391,701 subscribers

13,230 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生科学技术新闻政治 #IPCC #globalwarming #airquality #IPCC

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

marco nius 的头像

marco nius1 年前

The changing climate change science. They invent new BS every week

republicEn.org 的头像

republicEn.org1 年前

Conservative and care about climate change? Welcome home. Click the video below & sign the Petition: Conservative Climate Leadership in America. 🇺🇸

Peter MONTRÉAL 的头像

Peter MONTRÉAL1 年前

There is no #ClimateCrisis! CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is not a pollutant, is essential to photosynthesis and is only 0.04% of earth's atmosphere! CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas but rather H2O (water vapor) is. 8 BILLION humans exhale CO2 at every breath they take!

Stewie 的头像

Stewie1 年前

What a waste of Scientists. Could they not be used for better things.

johanna 的头像

johanna1 年前

nobody is buying what you're selling There is no climate crisis All we have a one great, big, huge money laundering operation

George_underbelly 的头像

George_underbelly1 年前

Has the assessment been peer-reviewed by an independent science organisation?

Frans Werf 的头像

Frans Werf1 年前

Better stop this damaging nonsense

Stewie 的头像

Stewie1 年前

What about acid rain and cow farts. Let's make up some new names for them MOOWIND, LSDH20

cameron zandol 的头像

cameron zandol1 年前

P R O P O G A N D A

Jed7 Stuff 的头像

Jed7 Stuff1 年前

Pure Democrat 🤡 💩 lies

相关视频

#IPCC calls for nominations of authors for Methodology Report on Inventories for Short-lived Climate Forcers. "Bringing together diverse voices, expertise & regional perspectives is crucial to producing a well-informed report." TFI Co-Chair Mazhar Hayat.

#IPCC calls for nominations of authors for Methodology Report on Inventories for Short-lived Climate Forcers. "Bringing together diverse voices, expertise & regional perspectives is crucial to producing a well-informed report." TFI Co-Chair Mazhar Hayat.

IPCC

10,256 次观看 • 1 年前

Climate change is increasing the intensity & frequency of heatwaves. According to our latest report, this extreme heat, compounded by wildfires and desert dust, has a measurable impact on air quality, human health & environment. 🗣️: #StateOfClimate 🔗:

Climate change is increasing the intensity & frequency of heatwaves. According to our latest report, this extreme heat, compounded by wildfires and desert dust, has a measurable impact on air quality, human health & environment. 🗣️: #StateOfClimate 🔗:

World Meteorological Organization

60,214 次观看 • 2 年前

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 次观看 • 2 个月前

Climate change is real. The EPA's decision that greenhouse gases are not a public health issue flies in the face of decades of data about the negative public health impact of greenhouse gases, including heat exposure and fire risk. Colorado is all too familiar with the effects of climate change, seeing the three largest fires in our state's history and the most destructive in the last five years. Despite the EPA's denial of scientific reality, Colorado will continue to achieve our ambitious clean energy goals to save people more on energy bills, reduce emissions, and improve our air quality and health.

Climate change is real. The EPA's decision that greenhouse gases are not a public health issue flies in the face of decades of data about the negative public health impact of greenhouse gases, including heat exposure and fire risk. Colorado is all too familiar with the effects of climate change, seeing the three largest fires in our state's history and the most destructive in the last five years. Despite the EPA's denial of scientific reality, Colorado will continue to achieve our ambitious clean energy goals to save people more on energy bills, reduce emissions, and improve our air quality and health.

Governor Jared Polis

39,722 次观看 • 1 年前

Signal versus noise podcast #4 Bonds: The Asymmetric Trade (June 17th, 2025) In this episode we talk about inflation and what appears to be the biggest asymmetric trade opportunity at the moment: fixed income. Our inflation outlook is explained in our new tenant rent report which points to slowing rent inflation for the coming months, which is a driving force that we expect will bring CPI below 2% in the near future. On the short term, the Israel-Iran hostilities and the rise in oil price from 60$ a barrel to above 70$ could lead to a short-lived rise in inflation. On a medium term, the rise in oil prices, if sustained, will be deflationary for the economy, which will have a negative impact on overall demand. The volatility in oil prices as a reaction to the developments of the conflict will likely lead to confounding inflation numbers, which will need to be scrutinized to understand the real underlying trend. We also discuss US real estate and our newly released report which points to housing weakness being led by multi-family house building. Our US real estate reports corroborate our report US Economy outlook for 2025

Signal versus noise podcast #4 Bonds: The Asymmetric Trade (June 17th, 2025) In this episode we talk about inflation and what appears to be the biggest asymmetric trade opportunity at the moment: fixed income. Our inflation outlook is explained in our new tenant rent report which points to slowing rent inflation for the coming months, which is a driving force that we expect will bring CPI below 2% in the near future. On the short term, the Israel-Iran hostilities and the rise in oil price from 60$ a barrel to above 70$ could lead to a short-lived rise in inflation. On a medium term, the rise in oil prices, if sustained, will be deflationary for the economy, which will have a negative impact on overall demand. The volatility in oil prices as a reaction to the developments of the conflict will likely lead to confounding inflation numbers, which will need to be scrutinized to understand the real underlying trend. We also discuss US real estate and our newly released report which points to housing weakness being led by multi-family house building. Our US real estate reports corroborate our report US Economy outlook for 2025

Edward Dowd

27,940 次观看 • 1 年前

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

12,206 次观看 • 2 个月前

Right now there's a spectrum of opinions on how to manage young people who identify as transgender. I sit at one end, believing that not a single one of these kids is trans; therefore, assessments are worthless because medical interventions are not appropriate in even a single case. At the other end of the spectrum is Johanna Olson-Kennedy. She also believes that assessments are worthless, because no amount of assessment can determine if a young person will persist in their trans identity into adulthood. However, she believes that justifies leaping straight into medicalization. Transition-on-demand for any kid who declares a trans identity. In the middle is Laura Edwards-Leeper, who does months of assessment and sometimes produces reports that are 30 pages long. She still can't tell who will persist in their trans identity into adulthood, but her approach has a veneer of credibility. To me, the Edwards-Leeper approach is like doing a nine-month assessment before referring someone for a lobotomy. Producing a 30-page report about a young person's suitability for having an ice-pick jabbed through their eye sockets.

Right now there's a spectrum of opinions on how to manage young people who identify as transgender. I sit at one end, believing that not a single one of these kids is trans; therefore, assessments are worthless because medical interventions are not appropriate in even a single case. At the other end of the spectrum is Johanna Olson-Kennedy. She also believes that assessments are worthless, because no amount of assessment can determine if a young person will persist in their trans identity into adulthood. However, she believes that justifies leaping straight into medicalization. Transition-on-demand for any kid who declares a trans identity. In the middle is Laura Edwards-Leeper, who does months of assessment and sometimes produces reports that are 30 pages long. She still can't tell who will persist in their trans identity into adulthood, but her approach has a veneer of credibility. To me, the Edwards-Leeper approach is like doing a nine-month assessment before referring someone for a lobotomy. Producing a 30-page report about a young person's suitability for having an ice-pick jabbed through their eye sockets.

Mia Hughes

64,674 次观看 • 11 个月前

On Dec 1 2023, the Prime Minister had announced grandly in Dubai that India would be hosting the annual UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP) in India in late 2028. Clearly the intention was to milk the global gathering for whatever it is worth in the months before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections - like Mr. Modi did by having the G20 Summit in New Delhi a few months before the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Unexpectedly last night, it was announced that India will not be hosting the high-profile 2028 Conference. No reasons have been given for this sudden decision. But it does reflect on the Modi Govt’s true commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement both in letter and spirit. It also calls into question the Modi Govt’s true commitment to take on more ambitious carbon mitigation goals in the short and medium term. By 2028, the seventh assesment report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) may get published and this could put greater pressure on India as the Chair of the 2028 Conference to forge a new consensus that would undoubtedly involve a scaling up of ambitions not just for a distant future. Incidentally, do we recall what the PM had told a group of children some years ago on his view of climate change? He had remarked that ‘people have changed, climate has not.’ Bizarre!

Jairam Ramesh

20,867 次观看 • 3 个月前

Sanders: The report pointed out that AI and robotics will have a huge impact in eliminating millions and millions of jobs. The CEO of Anthropic warned that AI could lead to the loss of half of all entry-level white-collar jobs. The people who know the most about this are already telling us that we’re going to see the displacement of tens of millions of jobs in the coming decades. Are we prepared to deal with that? The wealthiest people on earth are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into research and development for AI and robotics. You tell me why they’re doing that. You think they’re doing that because they’re thinking, “Oh man, this is going to improve life for working people, for low-income people”?

Sanders: The report pointed out that AI and robotics will have a huge impact in eliminating millions and millions of jobs. The CEO of Anthropic warned that AI could lead to the loss of half of all entry-level white-collar jobs. The people who know the most about this are already telling us that we’re going to see the displacement of tens of millions of jobs in the coming decades. Are we prepared to deal with that? The wealthiest people on earth are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into research and development for AI and robotics. You tell me why they’re doing that. You think they’re doing that because they’re thinking, “Oh man, this is going to improve life for working people, for low-income people”?

Acyn

120,714 次观看 • 8 个月前

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

114,237 次观看 • 9 个月前

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

Michael Shellenberger

66,361 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨 ALERT: Seattle/Woodinville area. We need to identify the Indian American family targeted in this racist attack at Cottage Lake Park by Trelen Brannen whose girlfriend is a MINOR! This incident involved hate speech, threatening gestures, and indecent exposure in front of minors. In Washington, these acts are considered hate crimes and are subject to serious criminal charges. You can help even if you were not the direct victim. Washington state encourages witnesses, including those who have seen evidence online, to report these incidents to ensure they are documented and investigated. How to Report as a Witness: Head to the IAAC link below to get information on what to do: Emergency Situations: If you believe a crime is in progress or there is an immediate threat to safety, call 911. Non-Emergency Reporting: If the event occurred in the past, contact the local police department’s non-emergency line in the jurisdiction where the incident took place. Explicitly state that you are reporting a potential hate crime or bias-motivated incident. WA State Hate Crimes & Bias Incidents Hotline: You can report to the state hotline at 1-855-225-1010 (Mon–Fri, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.) or via their online portal ( is a confidential, free, and statewide resource. You can report as a witness, and the hotline will not contact law enforcement without your explicit consent. Document the Evidence: If you have access to the video or photos, mention this when you report. Authorities may request this evidence as part of an investigation. As Indian Americans we should report incidents happening against the community and get civically involved. We should help ourselves first before reaching out to allies for support. Let’s do OUR Part to push back this Anti Indian hate!

🚨 ALERT: Seattle/Woodinville area. We need to identify the Indian American family targeted in this racist attack at Cottage Lake Park by Trelen Brannen whose girlfriend is a MINOR! This incident involved hate speech, threatening gestures, and indecent exposure in front of minors. In Washington, these acts are considered hate crimes and are subject to serious criminal charges. You can help even if you were not the direct victim. Washington state encourages witnesses, including those who have seen evidence online, to report these incidents to ensure they are documented and investigated. How to Report as a Witness: Head to the IAAC link below to get information on what to do: Emergency Situations: If you believe a crime is in progress or there is an immediate threat to safety, call 911. Non-Emergency Reporting: If the event occurred in the past, contact the local police department’s non-emergency line in the jurisdiction where the incident took place. Explicitly state that you are reporting a potential hate crime or bias-motivated incident. WA State Hate Crimes & Bias Incidents Hotline: You can report to the state hotline at 1-855-225-1010 (Mon–Fri, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.) or via their online portal ( is a confidential, free, and statewide resource. You can report as a witness, and the hotline will not contact law enforcement without your explicit consent. Document the Evidence: If you have access to the video or photos, mention this when you report. Authorities may request this evidence as part of an investigation. As Indian Americans we should report incidents happening against the community and get civically involved. We should help ourselves first before reaching out to allies for support. Let’s do OUR Part to push back this Anti Indian hate!

Rajeev Sharma

51,899 次观看 • 28 天前

How to extract data from papers for literature review in seconds? 1. Go to 2. Upload 2-3 papers you already know are relevant 3. Start with clicking on one paper 4. ResearchCollab do the following for the paper ✦ Provide a short overview of the paper ✦ Identify weaknesses in the paper ✦ Share papers that contrast the existing paper ✦ Extract meta data about the paper ✦ Evaluate each part (e.g., methodology) of the paper ✦ Provide AI chat to extract any other data 5. Now click on the Related Papers button at top right 6. You will get papers related to the seed paper 7. You can click on each paper and read its abstract 8. If you find it relevant, just add it to your list of papers 9. Do the same for the other 2 seed papers 10. This way you will collect all relevant papers 11. And extract data from those papers After this, analyse the data and report the findings. Try ResearchCollab today:

How to extract data from papers for literature review in seconds? 1. Go to 2. Upload 2-3 papers you already know are relevant 3. Start with clicking on one paper 4. ResearchCollab do the following for the paper ✦ Provide a short overview of the paper ✦ Identify weaknesses in the paper ✦ Share papers that contrast the existing paper ✦ Extract meta data about the paper ✦ Evaluate each part (e.g., methodology) of the paper ✦ Provide AI chat to extract any other data 5. Now click on the Related Papers button at top right 6. You will get papers related to the seed paper 7. You can click on each paper and read its abstract 8. If you find it relevant, just add it to your list of papers 9. Do the same for the other 2 seed papers 10. This way you will collect all relevant papers 11. And extract data from those papers After this, analyse the data and report the findings. Try ResearchCollab today:

Faheem Ullah

26,494 次观看 • 5 个月前

#ATXCouncil When I was elected to serve a half term two years ago, there was a very clear sense in this community that city government had lost the plot. It was clear that dramatic action was necessary - and dramatic action is exactly what we delivered. Over the past 24 months: ✅ We rebuilt our city management team ✅ We made historic changes to our land development code and streamlined our development review process to help create more - and more affordable - housing ✅ We launched a different economic development paradigm focused on new job training programs, like the Infrastructure Academy, to help Austinites build high-wage careers, even without a 4-year degree ✅ We took a new approach to fighting homelessness, which promises real results ✅ We adopted a new energy generation plan that delivers reliability and affordability while reducing the emissions that threaten our climate and air quality ✅ We transformed our 911 emergency system from a system that fell well below national standards to one that, in 2024, met those standards throughout ✅ We signed a new contract with our police officers that lays the groundwork to improve public safety across the board. In short … we got stuff done at City Hall. And I think Austin voters saw it, and liked it, and want more of it. They saw stable government getting results. And they want more. Watch the 2025 Austin City Council Inauguration Ceremony Live:

#ATXCouncil When I was elected to serve a half term two years ago, there was a very clear sense in this community that city government had lost the plot. It was clear that dramatic action was necessary - and dramatic action is exactly what we delivered. Over the past 24 months: ✅ We rebuilt our city management team ✅ We made historic changes to our land development code and streamlined our development review process to help create more - and more affordable - housing ✅ We launched a different economic development paradigm focused on new job training programs, like the Infrastructure Academy, to help Austinites build high-wage careers, even without a 4-year degree ✅ We took a new approach to fighting homelessness, which promises real results ✅ We adopted a new energy generation plan that delivers reliability and affordability while reducing the emissions that threaten our climate and air quality ✅ We transformed our 911 emergency system from a system that fell well below national standards to one that, in 2024, met those standards throughout ✅ We signed a new contract with our police officers that lays the groundwork to improve public safety across the board. In short … we got stuff done at City Hall. And I think Austin voters saw it, and liked it, and want more of it. They saw stable government getting results. And they want more. Watch the 2025 Austin City Council Inauguration Ceremony Live:

Mayor Kirk Watson

39,172 次观看 • 1 年前

Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so. I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections. This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website). The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA "vaccines" not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes. It's time to call for a Royal Commission! I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.

Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so. I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections. This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website). The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA "vaccines" not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes. It's time to call for a Royal Commission! I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

223,156 次观看 • 1 年前

Drop a . If you want to see Obama tried for Treason 🚨 Tulsi Gabbard Explains RussiaGate, which is now referred to as ObamaGate - Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, released a declassified report alleging that Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election to undermine President Trump. - The report claims that senior Obama officials, including James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice, intentionally created a "manufactured, politicized piece of intelligence" to subvert the will of the American people who voted for Trump. - Gabbard details how a document drafted for President Obama in early December 2016, which affirmed that Russia DID NOT have the intent or capability to hack the election outcome, and that Document was pulled before publication. - The following day, President Obama called a National Security Council meeting to discuss Russian interference, leading to the creation of a document that falsely claimed Russia influenced the election. - The report highlights the use of the discredited Steele Dossier, despite warnings from intelligence professionals, in the manufactured intelligence assessment directed by Obama. - Gabbard refers the documents to the Department of Justice for further investigation, emphasizing the need for accountability to maintain trust in the integrity of the democratic republic. - This revelation comes after President Trump ordered the declassification of all files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, contradicting previous intelligence assessments that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election.

Drop a . If you want to see Obama tried for Treason 🚨 Tulsi Gabbard Explains RussiaGate, which is now referred to as ObamaGate - Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, released a declassified report alleging that Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election to undermine President Trump. - The report claims that senior Obama officials, including James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice, intentionally created a "manufactured, politicized piece of intelligence" to subvert the will of the American people who voted for Trump. - Gabbard details how a document drafted for President Obama in early December 2016, which affirmed that Russia DID NOT have the intent or capability to hack the election outcome, and that Document was pulled before publication. - The following day, President Obama called a National Security Council meeting to discuss Russian interference, leading to the creation of a document that falsely claimed Russia influenced the election. - The report highlights the use of the discredited Steele Dossier, despite warnings from intelligence professionals, in the manufactured intelligence assessment directed by Obama. - Gabbard refers the documents to the Department of Justice for further investigation, emphasizing the need for accountability to maintain trust in the integrity of the democratic republic. - This revelation comes after President Trump ordered the declassification of all files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, contradicting previous intelligence assessments that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election.

MJTruthUltra

22,063 次观看 • 1 年前

The Liberal Party’s Green Delusionist can’t help himself… Mr. Guilbeault can’t seem to let go. The global facts on energy consumption, human development economics, population, and the environmental impact of Canada’s cleaner natural gas on the global coal-fired grid make his falsehoods on peak oil and pipeline capacity obvious. His years in Environment featured a 90% miss on emissions reduction, the burning down of Jasper after years of warnings to his failed Parks team, and the end of his punitive, hated carbon tax by a PM desperate to win an election by running as a conservative. So Mr. Guilbeault is lashing out. It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious but given the lazy press - and the fact that this climate fraud remains in this Cabinet full of the usual suspects that killed our economy for a decade, here is global energy in three simple charts: 1. FACT: Global energy demand and fossil fuel use is relentlessly rising. The world is using more of every form of energy including coal, oil and gas. 2. WHY? Because the greatest humanitarian human development moment in world history has been the energy intensive promotion of 1 billion people out of grinding poverty into the middle class in China, India and across Asia the past three decades. This is what is causing vastly higher energy consumption and rising global emissions. 3. HOW IS CANADA RELEVANT IN THE PLANET? With only 0.5% of global population and vast land and energy resources, what can we do to impact global emissions? - Alberta has more oil than the USA, Russia and China combined. We have more than enough gas to supply the needs of 4 billion people in India, China, Indonesia and across Asia. - We have the capacity and economic and proximity advantages to structurally displace a large amount of the dependence on thermal coal on the electrical grid across Asia - Because the retrofit of coal to gas is straightforward, our clean gas can cut the global emissions off the electrical grid of 4 billion people, at a scale equivalent to 2-3 times our entire national carbon footprint. Canada has been so blessed with so much. We have in front of us one of the biggest opportunities in history: To enhance human economic development commercially, environmentally, and diplomatically with trillions of dollars in trade and the soft power of becoming a critical part of global energy security. While cutting global emissions at scale. So why are green ideologues like Steven Guilbeault so angry? Because it must be killing him softly that the #1 climate action and most profound impact of Canada on global emissions in the coming decade will be trade from Alberta to Asia by the very same entrepreneurs and builders whose only request for a decade is that Stephen Guilbeault and his sad dystopian punitive green worldview just get out of the way.

The Liberal Party’s Green Delusionist can’t help himself… Mr. Guilbeault can’t seem to let go. The global facts on energy consumption, human development economics, population, and the environmental impact of Canada’s cleaner natural gas on the global coal-fired grid make his falsehoods on peak oil and pipeline capacity obvious. His years in Environment featured a 90% miss on emissions reduction, the burning down of Jasper after years of warnings to his failed Parks team, and the end of his punitive, hated carbon tax by a PM desperate to win an election by running as a conservative. So Mr. Guilbeault is lashing out. It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious but given the lazy press - and the fact that this climate fraud remains in this Cabinet full of the usual suspects that killed our economy for a decade, here is global energy in three simple charts: 1. FACT: Global energy demand and fossil fuel use is relentlessly rising. The world is using more of every form of energy including coal, oil and gas. 2. WHY? Because the greatest humanitarian human development moment in world history has been the energy intensive promotion of 1 billion people out of grinding poverty into the middle class in China, India and across Asia the past three decades. This is what is causing vastly higher energy consumption and rising global emissions. 3. HOW IS CANADA RELEVANT IN THE PLANET? With only 0.5% of global population and vast land and energy resources, what can we do to impact global emissions? - Alberta has more oil than the USA, Russia and China combined. We have more than enough gas to supply the needs of 4 billion people in India, China, Indonesia and across Asia. - We have the capacity and economic and proximity advantages to structurally displace a large amount of the dependence on thermal coal on the electrical grid across Asia - Because the retrofit of coal to gas is straightforward, our clean gas can cut the global emissions off the electrical grid of 4 billion people, at a scale equivalent to 2-3 times our entire national carbon footprint. Canada has been so blessed with so much. We have in front of us one of the biggest opportunities in history: To enhance human economic development commercially, environmentally, and diplomatically with trillions of dollars in trade and the soft power of becoming a critical part of global energy security. While cutting global emissions at scale. So why are green ideologues like Steven Guilbeault so angry? Because it must be killing him softly that the #1 climate action and most profound impact of Canada on global emissions in the coming decade will be trade from Alberta to Asia by the very same entrepreneurs and builders whose only request for a decade is that Stephen Guilbeault and his sad dystopian punitive green worldview just get out of the way.

David Knight Legg

36,518 次观看 • 1 年前

New short course: Build Long-Context AI Apps with Jamba. Learn about state space models (SSMs), which have emerged as an alternative to transformers! Specifically, Jamba is a hybrid transformer-Mamba architecture that combines strengths of the transformer with ideas from SSMs. This course is built with AI21 Labs and taught by Chen Wang and Chen Almagor. The transformer architecture is computationally expensive when handling very long input contexts. But there's an alternative called Mamba, a selective state space model that can process very long contexts with a much lower computational cost. However, researchers found that the pure Mamba architecture underperforms in understanding the context, and gives lower-quality responses. To overcome this, AI21 developed the Jamba model, which combines Mamba's computational efficiency with the transformer's attention mechanism to help with the output quality. In this course, you’ll learn about how state space models, and Jamba, work. You’ll also learn how to prompt Jamba, use it to process long documents, and build long-context RAG apps. - Learn how Jamba combines transformer and state space model architectures to achieve high performance and quality - Use the AI21 SDK, with an example of prompting over a large 200k-token annual financial report of Nvidia - Use Jamba for tool-calling, with hands-on examples from calling simple arithmetic calculations to a function that returns quarterly company financial reports. - Learn how training for long context is done, and the metrics used for its evaluation - Create a RAG app using the AI21 Conversational RAG tool and build your own RAG pipeline that uses Jamba and LangChain. By the end of this course, you'll learn how to build applications that can handle context as long as an entire book. Please sign up here:

New short course: Build Long-Context AI Apps with Jamba. Learn about state space models (SSMs), which have emerged as an alternative to transformers! Specifically, Jamba is a hybrid transformer-Mamba architecture that combines strengths of the transformer with ideas from SSMs. This course is built with AI21 Labs and taught by Chen Wang and Chen Almagor. The transformer architecture is computationally expensive when handling very long input contexts. But there's an alternative called Mamba, a selective state space model that can process very long contexts with a much lower computational cost. However, researchers found that the pure Mamba architecture underperforms in understanding the context, and gives lower-quality responses. To overcome this, AI21 developed the Jamba model, which combines Mamba's computational efficiency with the transformer's attention mechanism to help with the output quality. In this course, you’ll learn about how state space models, and Jamba, work. You’ll also learn how to prompt Jamba, use it to process long documents, and build long-context RAG apps. - Learn how Jamba combines transformer and state space model architectures to achieve high performance and quality - Use the AI21 SDK, with an example of prompting over a large 200k-token annual financial report of Nvidia - Use Jamba for tool-calling, with hands-on examples from calling simple arithmetic calculations to a function that returns quarterly company financial reports. - Learn how training for long context is done, and the metrics used for its evaluation - Create a RAG app using the AI21 Conversational RAG tool and build your own RAG pipeline that uses Jamba and LangChain. By the end of this course, you'll learn how to build applications that can handle context as long as an entire book. Please sign up here:

Andrew Ng

77,792 次观看 • 1 年前

Tokenization -- turning text into a sequence of integers -- is a key part of generative AI, and most API providers charge per million tokens. How does tokenization work? Learn the details of tokenization and RAG optimization in Retrieval Optimization: From Tokenization to Vector Quantization, created in collaboration with Qdrant and taught by its Developer Relations Lead, Kacper Łukawski. This course focuses on Retrieval augmented generation (RAG), which has two steps: First, a retriever finds relevant information; then, the generator uses what’s retrieved as context to produce a response. You’ll learn to optimize the first step (the retriever) by understanding how tokenization works and how it impacts the relevance of your search. In addition, you will also learn to measure and improve retrieval quality, speed, and memory. In detail, you’ll: - Learn about the internal workings of the embedding models and how your text turns into vectors. - Understand how several tokenizers, such as Byte-Pair Encoding, WordPiece, Unigram, and SentencePiece work. - Explore common challenges with tokenizers, such as unknown tokens, domain-specific identifiers, and numerical values, that can negatively affect your vector search. - Understand how to measure the quality of your search across relevance, ranking, and score-related metrics. - Understand how the main parameters in "HNSW", a graph-based algorithm, affect the relevance and speed of vector search, and how to tune its parameters. - Experiment with the three major quantization methods – product, scalar, and binary – and learn how they impact memory requirements, search quality, and speed. By the end of this course, you’ll have a solid understanding of how tokenization functions and how to optimize vector search in your RAG systems. Please sign up here!

Tokenization -- turning text into a sequence of integers -- is a key part of generative AI, and most API providers charge per million tokens. How does tokenization work? Learn the details of tokenization and RAG optimization in Retrieval Optimization: From Tokenization to Vector Quantization, created in collaboration with Qdrant and taught by its Developer Relations Lead, Kacper Łukawski. This course focuses on Retrieval augmented generation (RAG), which has two steps: First, a retriever finds relevant information; then, the generator uses what’s retrieved as context to produce a response. You’ll learn to optimize the first step (the retriever) by understanding how tokenization works and how it impacts the relevance of your search. In addition, you will also learn to measure and improve retrieval quality, speed, and memory. In detail, you’ll: - Learn about the internal workings of the embedding models and how your text turns into vectors. - Understand how several tokenizers, such as Byte-Pair Encoding, WordPiece, Unigram, and SentencePiece work. - Explore common challenges with tokenizers, such as unknown tokens, domain-specific identifiers, and numerical values, that can negatively affect your vector search. - Understand how to measure the quality of your search across relevance, ranking, and score-related metrics. - Understand how the main parameters in "HNSW", a graph-based algorithm, affect the relevance and speed of vector search, and how to tune its parameters. - Experiment with the three major quantization methods – product, scalar, and binary – and learn how they impact memory requirements, search quality, and speed. By the end of this course, you’ll have a solid understanding of how tokenization functions and how to optimize vector search in your RAG systems. Please sign up here!

Andrew Ng

146,313 次观看 • 1 年前