Climate change is simple: David Roberts at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege


Translator: Emma Becciu
Reviewer: Diba Szamosi Hi, this talk started out of a Twitter conversation. I haven’t decided whether to be embarrassed about that or not. But I was on Twitter one day and a relatively prominent left of centre pundit, piped up and said “You know, climate change seems like a really big deal, why are so few people talking about it? Why have so few thought leaders made it their signature issue?” And another reasonably prominent left of centre pundit piped up and said “Well, for my part, the reason I don’t talk about it is it seems really complicated, I don’t feel like I have a good grasp on all the science and so I just don’t feel qualified to go out and assert things publicly about it.” You know, anybody who has ever so much as mentioned climate change on television or on the internet will understand why this person thinks the way they do. Any time you mention it, the hordes descend, bearing complicated stories about the medieval ice age, or sunspots, or water vapour, and, you know, there is a lot of myths about climate change borne by these climate sceptics but to debunk those myths you have to know, you know, you have to go online, and research, and read, and be able to respond to them in detail, and a lot of people just find that prospect dreary, and so they don’t bother. And this, of course, drives me crazy, so I piped up on Twitter and said “You know, climate change is not actually that complicated. What you need to know to be able to speak out publicly about it, just about the basic structure of the problem, is really not that complicated, I could explain it to you in 15 minutes” so, let this be a lesson to you: don’t go talk smack on Twitter, unless you are willing to back it up. So, one thing led to another, and here I am with 15 minutes to explain climate change to you. So, let’s get started. Why is the Earth not a cold dead rock floating in space? The reason is that it is enveloped by this tiny, tiny thin layer of gases and chemicals that we call our atmosphere. So, the Sun’s energy, rather than just coming down and bouncing right back off, it comes down and is held close to the surface of the Earth for a while and then bounces off, and then this simple process is why we have evaporation, and precipitation, and photosynthesis, and life on our planet. So, scientists discovered, well over a hundred years ago, that the atmosphere and the systems on Earth are in this dynamic relationship and you can change the chemical composition of the atmosphere and hold more of the Sun’s energy for longer. The energy still has to escape, of course, but in the meantime it will cause changes in these biophysical systems of the Earth. And, you know, you often hear people say, “The Earth has always changed, the climate has always changed”, and that’s true, it has. This relationship between the atmosphere and the systems, they go through cycles, but these cycles have typically taken hundreds of thousand of years, millions of years. The key thing to know first is that for the last 10,000 years on Earth, the climate has been relatively stable, unusually stable, and by stable I mean temperature has varied, it’s gone up and down, but it’s stayed on a fairly narrow band of about plus or minus 1 degree Celsius, and all of advanced human civilisation has taken place during these 10,000 years, the development of agriculture, the written word, the wheel, the iPhone, everything we know, everything we have built, we have done in this period of relative climate stability. So, what we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years is digging up carbon out of the earth, and throwing it up into the atmosphere, and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, like has happened in the past except for extremely faster. In geological time, the blink of an eye, we are substantially changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and all of climate science has been about, “What’s going to happen? What is the Earth going to do in response to this?” And so, we’ve already seen that the process is underway, we have measured, we have witnessed, observed with our eyes and our thermometers about a 0.8ºC rise in global average temperature since before the industrial age, since before we started digging all this carbon up. And this may not seem like a lot — less than 1ºC — but the thing to know about it is these greenhouse gases we throw up stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, there are very long time lags involved here so this 0.8º temperature rise is a response to what we were doing 50-100 years ago, and what we see in the first half of this century will be a response to what we’ve done in the last 50 years and what we’ll see in the latter half of this century will be a response to decisions we make today. So the question is, “Temperature’s rising, how high does it have to rise before we need to worry, before we’re in danger, before bad things start happening?” The typical answer to this question has been “2ºC.” Anyone who has followed climate change discussions knows that this 2º number has taken on a kind of iconic quality. Typically, climate scientists who model impacts of what’s going to happen, model 2ºC rise, typically economists who try to model what it would cost to do something about climate change or what it’s worth or what various policies would cost, model 2º centigrade. So obviously, what counts as not dangerous vs dangerous, is not a hard scientific question, it’s a political question, and this was a political decision to take this 2C number, mainly made by European climate negotiators well over 10 years ago, and it’s just sort of stuck since then. All the countries involved in climate negotiations have basically signed on saying “Yes, this is what we want to avoid, 2ºC temperature rise.” The bad news on this 2C number is twofold: first of all, all the latest science done in the last 10-15 years has pointed to the conclusion that those impacts we thought were going to happen around 2ºC are in fact going to happen much earlier than that, the climate is more sensitive to these added greenhouse gases than we thought. So, if those were the impacts we were worried about, then the real threshold of safety ought to be something like 1.5ºC. James Hansen is the climate scientist most famously known for raising these warnings, but it’s a growing scientific consensus that 2º is, in fact, dangerously high, which is bad, because we are almost certainly going to blow past 2ºC. There’s some reason to believe a recent study said that even if we stopped our carbon emissions tomorrow, we’re still going to get more than 3º this century just from momentum from the previous emissions. But stopping at 2º now would take a level of global coordination and ambition that is nowhere in evidence. So, a lot of climate scientists don’t really want to tell you this because they don’t want to depress you, but I am just a blogger, so I am happy to depress you: 2ºC is probably off the table. So, then the question becomes “Well, what would it look like if temperature goes higher than that? What would, say, 4ºC look like?” Oddly, there hadn’t really been a lot of concerted scientific attention to that question because climate scientists honestly thought we wouldn’t do that to ourselves, but we are doing it to ourselves. So, in 2009, several climate change research groups in England drew together a group of scientists, commissioned some papers and had them really take a hard look for the first time. What would 4ºC look like? There are a lot of papers, a lot of equations, a lot of talk and complexity I have hopefully paraphrased here for you, to make it easier to grasp. 4ºC temperature rise would look ugly. Among other things, that would be the hottest the Earth has been in 30 million years. Sea-levels would rise at least 3-6 feet, and this excludes some really tail end possibilities, but 3-6 feet at least. And persistent drought would cover about 40% of the currently occupied land on Earth, which would wreak havoc on agriculture in East Asia, Africa, South America, Western US. Well this combined will produce hundreds of millions of people who have been driven from their homes either by their cities being swamped by sea-level rise or by hunger or by all the attended ills that come along with those things. And, to boot, probably somewhere around half of the known species on Earth would go extinct. This question of pinning down the exact number of species is very difficult, this is very much an approximation, but some substantial chunk of life on Earth would be wiped out. The final bit of bad news… that’s not true, there’s more bad news to come, a middle bit of bad news is that, according to a recent paper by the International Energy Agency, we are currently on track — if we keep doing what we are now doing, if we go on with business as usual, as it’s called — we are now on track for 6ºC temperature rise this century; something, 5-7, these are obviously estimations. So, if 4º is hell on Earth, I’ll let your imaginations filling the blanks on 6º but, one danger that comes up when we contemplate going this high with our temperature is the possibility that climate change will become irreversable. I think when people typically think about climate change, they think, “Oh, temperature is going to rise X amount, circumstances will change, some places will get warmer, some places will get wetter, we’ll adjust, we’ll move our farms around, people will migrate from one city to another, we’ll get resettled and we’ll go on with life. The really dangerous possibility is that what are called — the Earth has several of what are called positive feedback systems, so, for instance, in Siberia there is this permanent ice, the permafrost and it contains a bunch of methane in it. As it melts, it releases that methane, the methane causes more warming, which melts more ice, which releases more methane, it’s a self-sustaining process; or sea ice melts, ice is white, it reflects energy, when it melts becomes dark blue and absorbs more energy, which heats the oceans, which melts more ice, which creates more dark surfaces. You see, there’s a number of these systems that are self-perpetuating, and the danger, the great danger of climate change, that towers above all these other more specific dangers, is that these positive feedback systems will take on a momentum of their own that becomes unstoppable, and human beings will lose any ability to control it at all, even if we’d stop all our climate emissions on a dime. Will that happen at 2º? Probably not though there is a real chance of it and there is a lot of debate about that; will it happen at 4º? Well, it looks a lot more likely at 4º. Will it happen at 6º? Almost certainly. So, if we continue on our present course, climate change will probably take on a life of its own, spiral out of control and, according to a recent paper, by 2300, we could see temperature rise of up to 12ºC. Now if that happened, something like half the Earth’s currently inhabited land would become too hot to survive on; and when I say too hot to survive on I don’t mean it’s difficult to grow beans or air conditioning bills are inconveniently high, I mean if you go outside you die of hotness. I mean, places that were an average of 80ºF would be now an average of 170-180ºF, literally too hot for human beings to go outside and survive. So, will there still be human civilization under those circumstances? Who knows, I mean, maybe we’ll live in underground climate controlled caves, maybe we’ll grow food in test tubes, but that wouldn’t look anything like Earth as we now know it, it would look a lot more like Newt Gingrich’s moon colony, assuming any human beings, or at least enough to make a civilization survived in those circumstances. So, when I say “Climate change is simple.” — I know this has been bugging you, you are not used to thinking in Celsius, those strange European metric temperatures, so here is good American Fahrenheit, it’s just as ugly. So this is what I mean by climate change being simple: There are many complicated and fascinating discussions to be had about what to do about it, or about what effect our actions might have on the climate and when, or which policies are best based on cost benefit analyses. There is complexity, plenty of complexity, for those of you who like complexity, but we now know to a fair degree of certainty that if we keep doing what we are now doing, we will face unthinkable catastrophe; that’s the bumper sticker, that’s the take home message, and that, you know, saying “I don’t want to talk about that because I don’t know the ins and outs” is like saying, “I don’t want to raise alarms about Hitler’s army being a hundred miles out, because I don’t know the thread count of their uniforms, or, I don’t know the average calorie intake of a German soldier.” You don’t need to know those things to be scared that the army’s on the march and to raise alarms about it. Similarly, if we keep doing what we are now doing, we are screwed, this we know now. To stabilize temperature, and I don’t mean stabilize temperature at 2º, or 4º, or 6º, I mean to ever have a hope of ever again having a stable temperature, of any kind, global climate change emissions need to peak, stop growing, peak and start falling rapidly in the next 5-10 years. Every year we do not get started on this, we add, according to the International Energy Agency, an extra 500 billion, with a B, dollars to the price tag of what it is going to cost us to do this, eventually, every year we wait. That’s $500 billion down the drain. Now, you and I look around at current politics, particularly US politics, and massive coordinated intelligent ambitious action does not strike us as particularly plausible. In fact, it might strike us as impossible, but that is where we are, stuck between the impossible and the unthinkable. So, your job, anyone who hears this, for the rest of your life, your job is to make the impossible possible. Thank you! (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Climate change is simple: David Roberts at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege

  1. Yesterday ozone layer, today climate change. Some people just have to believe in some kind of ending for us all. At 2.20 Roberts asks "why is the earth not a cold dead rock" and give us the wrong answer, the right answer is the yellow circular body which we all can see every morning decides the everything we experience. The sun is God, the sun is life, surely all thinking humans realize that?

  2. Simple math issue, folks. Carbon was put in the ground over a period of hundreds of millions years. We are pulling it out, putting it into the atmosphere in mere centuries. Not a hard concept to grasp.

  3. Climate change is not simple & this guy knows nothing scientific about the subject. Of course all you AGW believers will believe this BS staff writer.

  4. This climate change alarmism is all based on junk science. There hasn't been any significant warming since industrialization. They can't explain the warming or the cooling….which is all very small and the result of a chaotic system.

  5. You state in a "matter of fact" way that CO2's effects lag the temperature changes by decades. You did not explain WHY at all. In fact, you probably did not say anything to explain because there is absolutely no reason for it to lag. That's because it really has virtually no impact at all….certainly none that can be measured within the chaotic system we call weather/climate.

  6. The temperature changes by 20 degrees going from just day to night……but co2 lags by decades??? PLEASE EXPLAIN GENIUS

  7. PLEASE REPLY WITH POLITICAL-LEANING AND VIEW ON CLIMATE (copy/paste):

    L/M = Labour (LEFT) / Man-made Climate change
    L/N = Labour (LEFT) / Natural Climate change
    C/M = Center (Mixed) / Man-made Climate change
    C/N = Center (Mixed) / Natural Climate change
    R/M = Conservative (RIGHT) / Man-made Climate change
    R/N = Conservative (RIGHT) / Natural Climate change

    My view: C/N = Center (Mixed) / Natural Climate change

  8. This guy does not know what he is talking about, the last ten thousand years has been anything other than stable and unlike his assessment of how quickly things can change are also incorrect. This is just a pack of lies to which this man is just compounding these lies.

  9. It should not be politics but science, you just cannot manipulate data just to prove how important you or your ideas are.

  10. cycles ? 10,000 years unusually stable ? in the 1930 we had a drastic hot years. 130 degrees in the streets , dust bowl, grapes of wrath,

    only 500 years for the medieval warm period where the whole planet was hotter than it is today.
    at the end of the 1800's the total lack of sea ice in the northern hemisphere had scientists exclaiming we may be headings into a warm period
    then in got cold. then really-really hot. then it got cold for decades.
    so, the concept of usually stable is a flat out lie.

    Altering the temperature data does to erase a documented and published PAUSE shows the politicians run the narrative.
    now we have found out that there is no data. none that can be believed because it has never been published.
    and when some numbers are published, they are altered when they are inconvenient.
    we get more honesty out of Trump than the pretend scientists.
    the only way to end the debate is to publish the data. there is over 100 years of measured temperature data. no one can access it.
    and if the e-mail scandles are true, even that data has been corrupted by people who want to control the information.
    now we have the Earth cooling and the UN says that it was never about climate, it has only ever been about wealth distribution.
    PLEASE stick to science. post the link to the temperature data. if you cannot, then you have nothing but opinion.

  11. We are a species which has evolved and survived by making a drastic change when forced by a threatening short term cataclysm. Unfortunately, climate change will be our demise because it occurs over a longer time period, thereby not really triggering humanity to respond until it is too late. Defeatist?…maybe, realistic?…probably.

  12. look carefully to every word in the next sentence : ALL climatologists who studied CO2 effects on climate found that it does NOT influence temperature, beyond the greenhouse effect for which it is already saturated.

  13. It is easy to understand – all the most profitable industries for a very long time are profitable based on release of carbon dioxide and methane these corps are the ones that control our government its regulations and tax systems. The time is now that industries that are not based on carbon and methane has finally arrived but they have not had the time or inclination to take over control of governement or yet, so this is why we are running head long as fast as possible towards our own demize while a tiny fraction of the population make a fortune doing it.

  14. Natural climate change associated with the grand solar minimum mini ice age of the 1600's has returned for its 400 year cycle, expect radical weather, meridional jet stream flow, glacial growth, Polar Bear population booms, falling sea levels, galactic influences, cosmic rays, wandering magnetic poles, volcanic uptick, earth quakes, mud floods and associated catastrophes and famine with crop failures leading to peak food shock and real climate migration, which has NOTHING to do with the man-made co2 global warming climate change myth. See ice age farmer, ice age now, adapt 2030, John Casey, grand solar minimum news channel, etc.

  15. 3:30 Here he is proving that he doesn't know much about what he is talking about : " these cycles typically over … hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years …"
    Swift changes like the start of a sudden ice age in a timespan of three years have also occurred so his scientifical point is ????

  16. Yes, it's much more fun to do nothing and just carrying on playing "CLIMATE DENIERS' RUSSIAN ROULETTE."
    Five live bullets, just ONE empty chamber!
    Yes we are the proud members of the "our minds are made up, please do not confuse us with facts" school of non thought.
    After all we survived the previous 5 mass extinctions OK, so why worry about bringing on the sixth one ourselves?
    Console yourself that IF you somehow DO manage to survive the coming fossil burning overheat catastrophic weather, the inevitable drastic disruption of food supply, the famine, the cannibalism, the war, the pestilence, the total collapse of civilisation and the nuclear meltdown…..
    WHAT DOESN'T KILL YOU MAKES YOU STRONGER.
    "Hello … hello … where is everyone ….. what's that funny smell?"

  17. Scientists have stated already that CO2 has been this high before before the last great extinction. In other words, it is quite normal for a populated planet. It is not dangerous to man, cannot change the weather and will not pollute the oceans.
    CO2 and methane are natural and God knew this when he created the earth. Man is not the enemy. Satan is the enemy. He knows we produce CO2 and that is why there is a focus on CO2.
    CO2 does not create global warming and is not a greenhouse gas. Water was made to maintain the temperatures of the planet. CO2 will never make a difference.
    The error in your science always lies with the assumption that there is no God.
    If evolution is true, then animals will adapt in the oceans and on land. Let's give evolution a chance. Stop pushing intelligent design by claiming all parameters have to be precisely maintained to sustain life on the planet. Is evolution true or are you just pulling our chains?
    If methane and CO2 were bad, the planet would have become uninhabitable long ago. Scientists claim that methane stays in the atmosphere 100 years. If that were true, we would be breathing fart air today and the earth would be a desert.
    Atheist science is a contradiction. There is nothing scientific about anything you have stated in this video.
    Apparently, climate change isn't as simple as you claim, because you got it all wrong.

  18. I love this! We are so powerful that we can totally change to Earth, but not powerful enough to change it back! hahahahahahaahah this argument reminds me of religion. Telling us stuff we know isnt true and attaching a scary god to it to keep poeple in line and believeng . Shame on you.

  19. The issue I take with this is that he provides very little actual verifiable information for us to work off of. He claims a lot of things about how terrible everything will be but then doesn't even drop a name of a scientific study we could google to see where he's getting that from.

    He tells us the world has risen in temperature by 0.8 degrees, and why he thinks that has happened. But he doesn't tell us where he got that number from. Or his explanation.

  20. This guy is mumbling nonsense, emissions are not hurting the climate and a large temperature rise is not a fact at all, it is complete B/S.

  21. The Climate Cult uses global records from a 100 years ago. There are places on earth that do not even record daily temperatures.LMAO.

  22. This is so wrong. We have 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now. The Earth was lush and covered with jungle and dinosaurs when CO2 was at 2000 ppm, and all the way up to 6000 ppm. CO2 levels are an effect of climate change, not a cause! More CO2 does not cause more IR absorption and retention of heat, as the IR absorption has already reached its maximum. It's like adding more salt to a brine solution, it doesn't make the brine any saltier. Climate change is happening, it has always happened, it always will happen. Human generated CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. All the carbon in the fossil fuels, perma-frost methane, carbonates in limestone/fossilized coral, was once in the atmosphere. The Earth is not going to become a desert from CO2 (maybe from the currently badly-designed nuclear reactors melting down, though, see the alternative thorium MSRs).

    Climate Alarmists want you to be worried about the paltry amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere now. It's been more than an order of magnitude higher in the past and the Earth was replete with jungle and animals. They want you to hand over your liberty and your money to achieve the leftist agendas of depopulation and poverty. Arguably, lowering human population is a good idea, but not by way of starvation and poverty.

  23. This is so wrong. CO2 levels are an effect of climate change, not the cause! The Climate Cult uses "global" records from a mere 170 years ago. Trace back 2'500'000 years, then you can come back and say it is simple. … and we'll believe you.

  24. What a crock of 💩. Why didn’t the planet’s spiral out of control when carbon levels were at 3000 ppm?

  25. Almost, maybe, possibly, Bumper sticker, etc, etc etc are all now scientific terms with the air of certainty that given as facts now by this individual that has no real scientific data to back up any of what he pontificates on. He is as bad as project fear from the EU remaoners camp! In the Seven years since this talk, there has been a distinct cooling of the planet according to the latest data from real scientists who rely on actual measurements recorded not from flawed computer models. The whole climate debate is a scam to screw the public out of their hard earned cash and redistribute it to the greedy globalist elites!

  26. In 1900 America had 30 million small farms, and today we have 3 million…. which never should have existed. Tower cities connected to maglev Trains were always needed. Nearby every Tower city we’d have small fields and all people share the work and ownership. I’ve read KJV Revelation and I see that one 7 headed beast is 7 corporations, and another 7 headed beast is the top 7richest nations that are destroying the earth, especially USA AND UK. Then the last 2 chapters are about how many nations start building Towers and Trains, and doing it alongside the greedy rich capitalists for a while, until someday in the future, God only knows when, there won’t be any more capitalists or unequal wealth on earth. All people should own all things worldwide so every person can live in Towers which capitalists stop from making this possible for every person, because the wage causes unequal wealth, but we can end that now because most money is just numbers in computers and we can eliminate it. But for now we need to say every person needs a Guaranteed Residual Income, and stop the wage.

  27. See why we should have built only Tower cities connected to maglev Trains, America? Do you? We need to start NOW! And there won’t be an announcement that the capitalist wage is dead, but we MUST tell people they all NEED a Guaranteed Residual Income so we can build the T&T! ASAP!

  28. you want truth? …the added weight of polar meltwater is activating the Pacific ring of fire the increase in seismic activity could open Yellowstone =ing nuclear winter …with all the talk about how to fix this ] nothing is getting done… anyway it is irreversible .. all this is happening right in front of us ..some are blinded by the very greed that brought climate change upon us some are blinded others telling them everything is alright …sorry but i deal in the here and now not some crapo fantasy …please do the research …thank you..wait something i read [ that is very unpopular [ if you are narrow-minded and a parrot [ someone who in trying to look intelligent that repeats theories and so-called facts, yet doesn't have a clue to there meaning ] don't answer this comment….this was in the Christian bible the latter part of a scripture found in Revelation11:18 where it says: and the time came for God to destroy those destroying the earth" if that does not seem to fit here and now…some of you have a real problem…again do the research it is free …thank you.

  29. Thankfully ever more organizations responsible for climate related
    future threats are taking ever increasing steps towards mitigation
    strategies and better risk assessment (e.g. insurance industry.) Thus,
    it is increasingly unimportant that we still have an enormous amount of
    climate risk ignoramuses in most societies. There will be many losers in
    coming decades; many of which will only have themselves to blame.

  30. Thankfully ever more organizations responsible for climate related
    future threats are taking ever increasing steps towards mitigation
    strategies and better risk assessment (e.g. insurance industry.) Thus,
    it is increasingly unimportant that we still have an enormous amount of
    climate risk ignoramuses in most societies. There will be many losers in
    coming decades; many of which will only have themselves to blame.

  31. Non scientific writer giving a rudimentary explanation of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Leaves out a multitude of other factors and data. Concludes with alarm and fear and presents no solutions. Presumably expecting people to clamor to their government for a solution. Governments rarely create efficient or effective solutions but are great at becoming freedom-stifling, larger bureaucracies.

  32. This isn't science it's pure political Green agenda. There never has been any man made global warming (96% of CO2 trace gas is natural) all we have are computer models by futurologists. GIGO. Follow the money Mr Gore, all just doom and no good news such as lower heating bills, less people dead from cold. (Chicago froze over last January!)

  33. Bull, the buoy system around Florida rise in water = 8" over 60 yrs…..u do the math…< 10" in 100 yrs……Step back 1 ' over 100yrs.

  34. This guy is FULL of $h1t . Who is paying him? Carbon dioxide is used by all plants and trees from which oxygen is regenerated for all of the earth. I am a BS EE PE. ( scientist ).

  35. Quit making fuel out of food. Stop spending money to produce energy with solar and wind. Build more solar. Use more natural gas. That is about the best we can do.

  36. Dead wrong! The reason Earth is not a cold dead rock like Mars say, is because it houses a massive nuclear decay pile at its core that generates huge amounts of heat; hence Volcanoes. What you should have said is "why isn't the surface of this planet a cold hostile place?" …

  37. co2 concentration in the air is about 400ppm, and the increase in last many many years is about 20 to 30ppm….. come on, explaining to me why would such tiny bit amount of co2 cause such dramatical change on climate change? the greenhouse gasses mainly are water vapour ! water vapour ! water vapour !

  38. At 14:05: 80F + 12C increase = 101.6F and not 170F or 180F as he is saying. Is he pulling his arithmetic from his "as"?

  39. It is inconceivable that addition of 1 extra CO2 molecule our of 10000 atmospheric molecules is the primary control knob for climate.

  40. Blah blah blah…. why don,t you tell the true!!! That the Weather is Made by Human being ! What do they Pay you fore such nonsens!

  41. naaaaah.. .. what climate change is is the Co2 coming out of the lungs of a couple of million fashionably guilty persons intent on having you share their weight of culpa via a systematised process of futile c o m p l a i n t. Maybe they never heard that their increasingly weaponised complaining without solution, ie without getting out of t h e i r own cars, without stopping the high street waste and rationalising their aircon, winter and summer, without buying 1000 electronic gadgets per head.. .. can change zilch.

  42. When he claims that society has developed just over the past 10,000 years during climate stability is absolutely hypothesis and you can hear his voice shake trying to believe that himself as a fact.

  43. Liked your talk, but humans do not die if the air is 180f. I´m a Finn and I like my saunas at 212 -248 degrees Fahrenheit. But of course, if you could not cool at some point, you would die. Maybe 30 min max, I´m not sure, I´m not sauna mad, but a once a week Sauna man. Still like it to be hot, at least 100c/212f!

  44. And again no facts just words from a blogger, sea levels rise have been alerted for ages and it have risen 1 cm max, thats alot less than the 12 meters alerted just 20 years ago.
    They want people to belive them, but they present just words and the deniers actually uses facts and grafs to show there is no problem.
    So, what happens if it suddenly starts to cool? Like some grafs actually show?

  45. The fact is that the climate crises will get worse, more deadly, and more expensive until we address it fully. In addition, the longer we wait the more expensive it will be to address it. Further, there are processes that once the occur cannot be reversed. The methane will not go back into the permafrost etc. It isn't a matter of address it or accept reasonable consequences. It will not stop getting worse until addressed and needs to be addressed now.

  46. World temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees since the little ice age which killed many people via crop failures across the world and half the population of Iceland.

  47. I lived through Y2K and not a single alarm clock failed. By the way Al Gore was behind that scare campaign as well. So i understand this dismissive behavior of older people. But the facts here are simple, CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet and humans are putting it there. So I guess we are arguing over the various models of what this means for us here on earth. Since this wont really effect anybody over the age of 50 (me included soon) how about we let the young people vote on it. Anyone over 50 gets no vote. My last word is I would find a planet devoid of wildlifeand nature absolutely depressing. I dont want to live on Mars nor do I care how many celebratory chiefs i can watch on reality TV I love walking in the forest here and bird watching and catching a fresh fish from the sea. Its my connection to spirit. So I hope you young people can bring in some new world order that does not have at its core an obsession with wealth at all costs.

  48. Wrong carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere 120 days liar. Why is it that a physicist is never on the stage talking about this?

  49. Dr. Robert Lindzen an actual physicist who has been studying the atmosphere for over 60 years. I would listen to a physicist rather than listen to a journalist or the intergovernmental panel! Panel!! On climate change. The ipcc will not listen to the one physicist who has been studying the climate for 60 years! .04 percent! That’s how much co2 makes up our atmosphere! 3 percent comes from humans.

  50. The only thing this guy says that is correct is that it can be explained in fifteen minutes. More temperature stations in cities, than away from cities. Temp is higher in cities. 4 degrees higher. 5 temp. Stations in cities and one outside of cities will give you a higher average temp. Duh! Take away temp reading in cities. No warming! Idiots! Co2 is plant food! Co2 is rising temperature is not!

  51. We absolutely need to use Farenheit for all Global Warming discussions in the U.S. because illiterate, uninformed deniers will see 1 degree Celsius and have no idea it means 34 DEGREES FARENHEIT!

  52. If there was a drought over 40% of the earth, it seems like there would be less plant life to absorb CO2 and use it in respiration. Why wouldn't the increased heat cause more water vapor to go into the atmosphere and cool the planet? The hotter the Earth gets, the faster it will reradiate the heat into Outer Space. If it got up to 4 degrees brave what it is now millions of years ago, you have to admit that some corrective mechanism was activated to swing it back to a livable average. There is nothing certain about catastrophe because the Earth has corrected high temperatures in the past. Those high temperatures came without man made CO2 into the atmosphere.

  53. Why are comments to this presentation typically several years old? Are "negative" comments to this presentation typically excluded? I guess it would do no good to point out the numerous scientific errors and alarmist baloney presented in this video. Evergreen needs to stick to its leftist, progressive social ideology and leave climate science to real scientists instead of propagandists like Dave Roberts.

  54. This guy isn't a scientist and sadly doesn't have a clue of the lies he's telling. Eg, the planet changed much much more then 1 deg over the last 10 000 years. Sad, that someone like this can do a TED talk,

  55. Look at the temperatures in the 1930's, specifically 1934.
    Likewise in Europe in the 1910's.

    Come back to me if you think it's hot now.

  56. What's funny is YouTube thinks this guy is a climate change denier and places the obligatory Wikipedia global warming article below the video.

  57. Where is the time that these alarmist wore a sign in the streets? With social media we are now governed/run by extremists with powerful platforms.

    This guy is an arrogant predictor, where no prediction ever came true on climate.

    “Almost certainty” really????

    “We are screwed, this we KNOW”. Really????

    TED I thought you would be a little more selective.

  58. Let’s create a system like they have on the ISS except on a huge scale to scrub the CO2 out of our atmosphere. Then when we find that we expel lots of CO2 as humans we should get rid of humans. Oh, wait animals on land and sea also expel CO2 so maybe we should also get rid of them too. What’s left? Oh, wait nothing because plants need CO2 for food to grow. Oh well that’s life.

  59. Climate change ?? In the 21st century we humans like believing we "have the power" to be in total control of everything and hate to think certain facets of our comfortable life could scare us.
    So if we don't like climate events just  look for some man made activity to blame rather than admit our vulnerability to what is beyond our control. If we can nominate some human activity then government can tax it and some institution will inevitably seek funding to "solve" it.
    But why the heck should anyone expect long range climate patterns to be static. Look at the record for climate over the past 500mill years. We survive on a very small, unique, fragile rock hurtling thru space in an imperfect orbit around a star that converts 5 mill tons of mass into energy every
    second. Occasionally sunspots and flaring occur, our magnetic poles change, tectonic plates affect islands and even continents, earthquakes  and tsunamis, undersea volcanoes (some 75,000) rise up to a kilometer, heating the oceans with lava affecting sea pH, temperature and levels. And some complain that it's all man induced with oceans perhaps having risen an inch and  global  temperatures increased a degree over past100yrs all bc of man's activities?  Then these ill informed, carbon based doomsayers, aka green zombies and control freaks look for someone or something  to blame. So they wrongly  complain that CO2 is a pollutant and not the sustainer of all lifeforms and the reason the earth is not a desolate, lifeless wasteland, like every other planet in the universe. But how else do these self defined semi evolved apes glorify an otherwise meaningless existence and get on TV?

  60. The simple Scientology of climate change:
    If  u want irrefutable proof of Correlation being proof of Causation, consider this example. Shark attacks show exactly the same binomial distribution in summer as ice cream consumption. If we could only discourage beach goers from eating ice cream, we could save lives. On the other hand if we could half CO2 to 150ppm, all plant life would die, then humans would inevitably follow soon after. Alas sharks would then  have nothing to eat, Damn!

    Conclusion: to verify this relationship a clever programmer using a virtual computer model to design  with parameters to show the desired effect of atmospheric CO2 on human population. Such a Correlation should include shark attacks and  ice cream. The desired outcome would be to predict future population levels as CO2 rises or falls. Got it?
    This is not an inaccurate analogy to show the sad state of climagate and their failed, flawed and fudged evidence base for predicting how man is adversely controlling climate change.

  61. Is this climat alarmist a joke? How can anyone get so much wrong? He can't even give one concrete source to anything he says. I think we need to go back to science instead of listening to incompetent bloggers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *