How science can combat climate change conspiracies - Whose Truth? The Documentary, BBC World Service

If you are a science teacher in school then you have to be clued up about CC. It's a science dilemma that is taking place right here, right now, as Norman Cook would say. So it should be the most relevant topic in the science class.

Countries are badly hit by climate disasters may aware the critical issue of climate change. On the contrary, country with little impact from climate change may take climate issue lightly . Therefore , the tropic of climate change may become a long-term issue for the world to overcome of it.

There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022).

Your positive energy radiates through the screen!

Both sides need to take responsibility, the green movement hasn't exactly made themselves believable all the time. There's a lot of money (trillions?) in polarising and then greenwashing.

In 1950, the population of Africa was estimated to be between 220 million and 240 million people. Today it’s almost 1.5 billion. The birthrate is over 4.3 children/woman; twice as high as the rest of the world.

There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!

What's weird is that NASA reports the earth as greening and clearly crop yields are up. How strange is that?

This video lacks scientific foundations. Quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.

And what if the courts rule against your narrative 😮

“GDP continues to grow by 8%”... Indian economy racing✨[Hello India]

The truth? Industrialization was never the cause of the upsurge of fossil emissions from bitumen, coal, gas and oil: mechanization of warfare and colonization were. But warfare means defense, and defense is patriotic, so fossil trade gained the halo of patriotism for many. We knew the pollution was harmful, but fear of 'the enemy' was greater than fear of what we were doing to each other through tailpipes and smokestacks. Then, well-meaning thinkers like Vaclav Smil started preaching that poverty was worse than pollution, excusing any excess of emissions, as if there were no choice but fossil. Now, we know those views are simply wrong on technical grounds. Asymmetric warfare sees cardboard drones powered by batteries sinking warships fueled by heavy oil for less than a penny on the dollar. Fossil no longer guarantees defense: it guarantees defeat. Biochar soil amendment outperforms synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. Renewables are less costly than fossil across the board for energy. Net carbon negative geopolymers are better and less expensive than OPC for concrete. So not only are these opponents of action to solve climate change politicized and polemicized; they're also expensive. Try Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 & Roadmap.

Brilliant documentary

I call all science sceptics flat earthers now. Some of them actually get quite stroppy . Hopefully, they will re-evaluate their daft attitude.

The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution. Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution. Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution. increased lightning: not detected, no attribution. Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution. There is no climate crisis.

Nature will cull humans.

Great! Love it! And as usual, there are lot of dezinfo „experts“ in the comments.

Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (<$1 a day). And death from weather events have collapsed by a factor 50 from 241 million down to 5 million even while the global population has increased by a factor of 5. There is no climate crisis. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points. Barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should be $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021). This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.

If you could send out more details about teach the teacher then that would be good please. As I often have conversations with people on CC and it is useful to be as prepared as possible.

Sadly The Many millions of people who work directly or indirectly in the fossil fuel industries simply don't want to believe in climate change (regardless of whether it's true or not) because they don't want to lose their 'jobs' and the only way you could quickly provide them with alternative jobs and incomes would be to make it financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs we NEED people to do and to work much less.