Is Climate Change a Hoax?

Is climate change real? Is it a hoax? Let’s review what scientists in their field of study have concluded and try to gain an unbiased basic understanding of what is happening to our planet.

Peer-reviewed scientific journals, preferably written by scientists holding doctorates within their relevant fields of study, such as Climatology, Meteorology, Geology, and any other relevant interdisciplinary fields within physics, chemistry and biology are the generally accepted benchmarks for reliable data. With that being said, I will not be quoting from Al Gore or Bill Nye, and will intentionally avoid any disreputable scientists who are assumed to be on the payroll of big oil or political parties with an obvious agenda or bias. With the disclaimer out of the way, if you have any additional credible sources or verifiable corrections that add weight to either side of the argument please comment below.

Additional Resources:

Free Booklet: Acts of God: Why Natural Disasters? -

Reference Links

Chapter 1 – Carbon Dioxide

Chapter 2 – Global Temperatures

Chapter 3 – Correlation vs Causation

Chapter 4 – Anthropogenic vs Natural Causes

Chapter 5 – Climate Models

Chapter 7 – Media, Politics and Industry

----------

Subscribe here:

#carbondioxide #climatechange #hoax

[MrCorruptedShadows]

Also, they stated they would try to present the facts independent of things like oil and politics but keep referring to the IPCC wich is in fact funded and controlled by government and policies. Its been shown that policy makers give the scientists the parameters that theeir results must meet to influence the summary for policy makers, so the policy makers tell the scientists what they want the report to say instead of the other way around

[RedKnight-fnjr]

The Earths climate is changing as it always has! Co2 levels are rising as they should be - 400ppm is still very low. It was at one stage only 180ppm (last Ice Age) and if Co2 dropped below 150ppm, our vegetation would start to die off - an optimum level of Co2 is around 1000ppm (1% of the gas the makes up our atmosphere) according to a Greenpeace founder. Also, Co2 is statistically proven to follow temperature change, not the other way around.

[callmeishmael]

In my observations of comment and response between alarmists and skeptics, it's the alarmists who go straight to ugly ad hominem attacks.

[kenmarriott]

You only need to talk over others, interrupt, or put them down with name calling if you don't have an argument. I see a lot of this in the news media.

[aliedfurdich]

1 degree per doubling of CO2 means it get exponentially more difficult to achieve another degree of warming (if the causation is correct) I.e. now we have to get to 800 ppm for the next degree, then 1600 etc. This is because of the way CO2 saturation works.
But CO2 is a good thing anyway, it’s clean and it’s food for plants. Higher CO2 levels makes plants more drought resistant as they require less water.
Besides a degree warmer may not be a bad thing.
I wonder if some of the famous alarmists will be prosecuted for fraud when this slowly comes out of the woodwork

[robmanzoni]

You state: "...there have been several abrupt changes to our climate in the past..." then: "...albeit rather gradual, over time..."
Well, what is it - abrupt, or gradual...?

[gregggoodnight]

Have you considered the possibility that higher atmospheric CO2 could be the effect of higher temperatures rather than the cause of higher temperatures? The solubility of CO2 is seawater is an inverse function of temperature; a hotter ocean results in greater out-gassing of CO2. Please note that global temperatures started increasing after the Little Ice Age (early 1800's) well before increased fossil fuel usage and before significant atmospheric CO2 increases. How can an effect precede a cause in a time sequence?

[cynthiacook]

This is not a level headed approach. The truth is, that for millions of years, we have been in a CO2 famine. During the Jurassic period of the dinosaurs and later, the concentration of CO2 was between 2, 000 - 8, 000 ppm, with the temperature being the same or a little bit higher and was not inimical to life. Also, during the last 2, 100 years, there have been four, real, factual climate changes, the Roman War Period 0 AD to 240 AD, the Dark Ages Cold Spell, 240 AD - 800 AD, the Medieval Warm Period 800 - 1400, the Little Ice Age, 1400 - 1820 - 1850, and the Late Period, which began in the late 1800's and is still on going. The Sahara Desert is greening again, satellite photos are showing new growth of trees there, and not the ones being planted by people. This is due to the rise of CO2, which is needed. CO2 is not a destructive chemical, nor is it a destructive greenhouse gas.

[Mavrck-itkq]

Pretty simple but you have to prove a correlation between co2 and temperatures. The problem here is you say co2 up there for temp up and don't explain how the 2 correlate or prove that they do. Since co2 is double any historical high but the temperature has not doubled it's clear there isn't a 1 to 1 ratio of co2 to temp. Since it's not that it could be that co2 has already affected the climate to the max it's going to and is no longer increasing the temp. It could also be somewhere in the middle. Should read "melting icebergs key to sequence of an ice age" a paper from Cardiff university. If temps rise ice bergs melt and trigger an ice age that cools the planet. Checks and balances.

[deeweyant]

Spraying sea water into the air will cause cooling to occur.. But, there's no money in it.. ❄

[simonmcpherson]

I consider this presentation THE most unbiased and unemotional ( not emotive) that I have come across. Most people and podcasts etc, are pretty one-sided.
This was most refreshing.
Thank you. I’ll play to my kids, and let decide how to act

[andrewbrass]

Hi, interesting summary. Any yet the antarctic ice cores show that Co2 lags temperature by some 800 years or so over the last 800k years. So how does this stack up against the opposite result in the paper by J. Shakun?

[georgechristiansen]

The inability to understand the difference between proxy data and collected data is what confuses many people. It is also what allows people to bullshit us about things like Darwinian evolution and climate science.

I am not saying that these theories are ultimately false, BUT we are DEFINITELY being bullshitted by people presenting proxy data as actual data. We have zero collected (in real time) data beyond a couple of hundred years in either case (and that data is still subject to interpretation, and therefore falls prey to bias and questionable motivations to wield conclusions based upon sketchy theories), but we are told all about proxy data as if the methods of creating it (which IS what is done) are infallible in spite of there often being no possible way to check our "work".

[aaronlaluzerne]

And let's not forget that since the sun just entered grand solar minimum, there is a great chance of another Ice Age or Glacial maximum happening in the near future like in the 2030's to 2040's.

[billkemp]

A brilliant mix of truth, half truth, and outright distortion!

[nicholasgeorge]

The main crisis is that the world has gone from 1:billion people in 1803 to 8 billion people in 2022

[TheGandorX]

Chapter 3: looking back at climate proxy data, there is also evidence where temperature and CO2 were not related.
Also, the amount of science papers referenced in this video is minute, and no indication of the quality of the evidence provided in these papers.
A heavily biased video, stopped watching at 5:40.

[VictorTheHan]

This video makes you lose credibility...

[pzolsky]

i'm happy to leave an empty fridge on with the door open to help

[jimg]

It's cold, i need to go build a fire in my bad, bad, wood stove and contribute more to global warming