Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
🌡️ What does "overshoot" mean in climate science? Robert Vautard, #IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair, explains it as UN Environment Programme launches its Limiting Overshoot report. Find out more from IPCC’s reports here: Read UNEP’s report here:
14,924 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![“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](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1984003595080241338/amplify_video_thumb/1984001965953839110/img/XbIlSgE2iW3ADFmk.jpg)
![However, it would not be the Russia Hoax without naming another prominent Democrat. You know, the crooked one... President Trump shifted to Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier, accusing her of bankrolling a report so phony even the media wouldn't touch it before the election. That, he said, told you everything. “But he [Obama] also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton, crooked as a three dollar bill.” “Hillary Clinton and her group, the Democrats, spent $12 million to Christopher Steele to write up a report that was a TOTAL fake report.” “Took two years to figure that out. But it came out it was a total FAKE report. It was made up fiction.” And then, surprisingly, a moment of reluctant praise...for the press. “Probably the only thing I respect about the press in years, is the press refused to write it before the election. They refused to put it in.” “The Steele report was a DISASTER. All lies, all fabrication. All admitted. An admitted fraud.” “She paid $12 million and the Democrats for that report to a wise guy named Christopher Steele. He wrote a phony report and they wanted to get that report in before the election.” “I will tell you what, I talk about all the time the fake news how bad it is, but in this case, they wouldn’t do it.” “They saw it, they read it and they said we don’t believe it.” “It was only after substantially like a month and a half after the election it got printed and it was just like a bang of nothing.” Then he gave the New York Times the one compliment he could manage. “If that report had gotten published by ‘The New York Times’ or somebody, and I respect the Times for maybe only this, because they’re crooked as you can be—but for this one moment this is BULLSHIT.” “We can’t put this in.” For Trump, this says a lot.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1947740932087968092/amplify_video_thumb/1947739585691168768/img/rnS_wcla8NAkTh1B.jpg)
