It is just a perfectly balanced, well written, well paced documentary series.
It starts out by addressing and debunking every conceivable claim that climate change deniers come up with, then it highlights the consequences to the world if climate change continues like the status quo, then it shifts to a perspective in history on how we can find solutions to this problem (and have in the past), and ends with a beautiful view of a future society that we can achieve if we make the right decisions now.
Perhaps the best episode yet.
in the US there's a republican bill designed to block the department of defense from researching "climate change". it spell the beginning of the end of this dead issue. after climategate we can't waste any more money on botched, biased data from "climate scientists". do you know how cold last winter was for us? REALLY COLD. MORE COLD THAN USUAL.
in the US there’s a republican bill designed to block the department of defense from researching “climate change”
False. This is not a bill, it is an amendment. Putting quotes around climate change won’t convince me that its untrue; actual evidence will. Sorry bub.
it spell the beginning of the end of this dead issue. after climategate we can’t waste any more money on botched, biased data from “climate scientists”.
Bad grammar and spelling. Way to sound professional. I do agree, this is a dead issue. There is no debate anymore that climate change is real.
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is indeed real. Want more proof, how about some world renowned AMERICAN scientific groups:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
There are lots more from my source, NASA
do you know how cold last winter was for us? REALLY COLD. MORE COLD THAN USUAL.
How scientific. It was cold; more cold. Wow. Want me to give you a medal for your scientific and journalism research?
Repeat after me;
Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.
And if that’s not enough take a look at temperatures from January 2014 (i.e. last winter). Look at all the new heat records compared to all the cold. Maybe parts of the US and Russia were record cold but everywhere else on earth was either warmer than usual or set new heat records.
I've looked into skeptical claims against man made climate change out of curiosity where they base it. I've seen the "97%" questioned. I read the abstract of the study and it discussed that out of the 12,000 or however many papers that were reviewed, only 30% actually made statements on the cause of climate change and 97% of those agreed its caused by human activities. I just thought it was interesting because it gives the impression it was all papers. At least to me.
That is interesting, but it does make sense.
You don’t need to include a factoid claiming that climate change is right on every paper unless you’re actively being challenged about it.
There’s a consensus on climate change so it makes sense that only a small portion of papers would need to explicitly state it in their papers.
There's no "liberal" vs. "conservative" science; there's the many scientists who think there's anthropogenic climate change and the few who don't. Any ideological alignment arises after the fact. Forcing these loaded and broad political labels onto scientists over a single issue is, quite frankly, creepy. It recalls Stalin and Lysenkoism: "You can either accept genetics or support communism. Choose wisely."
And the scientists that ‘think’ that, don’t think that. They’ve come to a conclusion based on rigorous compiled data.
I don’t want to give people the impression that people are just on a whim deciding that climate change is or isn’t real just because. That’s not how science works.
But yes I totally agree with you. Its a slippery slope when you start making those statements.
Any scientist who says there is no global warning is NOT a scientist.
No, they’re still a scientist; just misinformed.
If they’re a climatologist all their credibility should be gone at this point in time. At the very least I’d be suspicious of whether they’re being lobbied to deny climate change.
But there is liberal vs. conservative science. The liberals say that climate change is caused by humans and conservatives say it isn't. There's strong evidence for both sides, but the conservatives have the edge here simply because their evidence is more believable.
But there is liberal vs. conservative science.
There is no such thing! What the data says is what Science agrees with and by that logic Climate change does exist and is caused by humans. Something like >97% of Climate Scientists strongly agree with this fact. Its not their opinions; its represented by their data published in peer reviewed studies.
The liberals say that climate change is caused by humans and conservatives say it isn’t. There’s strong evidence for both sides, but the conservatives have the edge here simply because their evidence is more believable.
There is basically zero evidence to the contrary. So many caveats of non-anthropogenic climate change have been scientifically disproven, such as solar variability.
I even got you a source:
Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.
They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that solar activity has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.
I'm not trying to defend the idiots who think that the destruction of the ozone layer and all is made-up, but don't you think the term "global warming" is a problematic misnomer? pollution and emissions has significant impact on the climate but to call it "warming" as opposed to the reality that some places get cold and some get warmer as a result of climate change does trigger inherent confusion. thoughts?
You are right.
Global warming was I believe the original term used and was in reference to greenhouse gases ability to absorb heat and trap it in the atmosphere. Climate as a whole is more complicated than that. The average global temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere but some areas in particular are warming faster than others.
Also weather ≠ Climate (short term versus long term trends in the atmosphere). A cold winter does not negate climate change in any way. In fact if people used that term instead of global warming it wouldn’t be a problem. It is well understood that differences in temperature will change weather patterns; some places will get colder; others drier; others wetter. Its all climate change.