Climate Change: New Data, New Debate

Funny how Americans talk about progress while ignoring what it will actually require them to do. Progress, while the US executes a war against a major oil producer, with the intent to exert control over global oil exports. The US is currently hording oil and gas so they can continue on the business as usual trajectory. The US has been responsible for aiding genocide in Gaza for the purpose of securing oil resources offshore of Gaza.

We are not experiencing progress, we are experiencing collapse. And ya, collapse can look like progress. Reduce emissions by 50%, that world is a shadow of what we are experienced now. Clearly, the US lifestyle is untenable in a future of reduced emissions. So to see progress continue, we must see a massive reduction in fossil fuel use in the US.

This is not the old era where survival meant just having food. Today, raising a child requires stability, planning, and responsibility. If we lack financial stability and resources, it is unfair to bring a child into a life of struggle and suffering. Life is tough, and opportunities are not guaranteed. Having children is a serious responsibility, not a social obligation.

Laws of physics and thermodynamics rule no exceptions. Add 57 billion tons of greenhouse gases to our globally shared atmosphere annually and the laws of physics and thermodynamics do their thing.

Thank you for being brave enough to talk about this. Main stream media is reluctant to even mention "climate change". My fear is that climates might already be changing and if that's true plants will be the first to suffer since they are not mobile (enough) to move away from changes that affect their productivity. Since plants do the job of storing carbon and their habitats change so they die, that carbon sink becomes a carbon source. I hope I am wrong but I think it's possible "we have warmed the world enough so that it begins to warm itself through reinforcing feedbacks. The more ice we melt the faster the ice will melt and what is under that ice/permafrost (thousands of years worth of detritus material) needs to stay under that ice..."

Thank you for this critical update some of which I was unaware of the amount of dismantling by this administration, plutocrats and hydrocarbon industry. It is infuriating!

Please stop normalising the extremely aggressive , deadly and fast greenhouse effect by calling it climate change.

Here’s something to ponder.

Climate scientist Michael Mann's high-profile defamation lawsuits ended with a major reversal. Although a 2024 jury originally awarded him $1 million in damages against two conservative writers, a judge subsequently reduced one writer's penalty to $5,000 and sanctioned Mann for deliberately presenting misleading grant data. Ultimately, Mann ended up owing the defendants roughly $1 million in legal

Contrarians are your best friends. Without them you would not seek out real data and you would fall into the trap of a bias. Governments will tell people what they want to hear and to go along completely with them without question will lead to counterproductive results.

Well, to stop flying and stop eating hamburgers would be a good start... Just saying

I swear people will still be arguing about climate change while they are stumbling around in smoke and ashes searching for something to eat or drink. Don't listen to Michael Mann, he's so full of hopium he can't be trusted. It's too late to do anything about all this now. When you hear people like him talking decades, think years.

Love Micheal, but he is often far to confident in his own knowledge... ie., we have made "some" progress on Climate Change, but it is more likely we will see the law of diminishing returns then a continuous positive uptick in CO2 reductions...  
Forgive me, but I take issue with all these guys that think they are talking to little kids, and always have to put a happy face on everything... Like you want to be our daddy, not satisfied to just be a scientist... Al Gore (not a scientist), is always like that, too, and so are quite a few Climate Scientists... ...kind of a backward Dunning-Kruger effect.
BTW; the annual emissions have continued to go up, certainly no downward bend in that curve, and the notion of puling down the CO2 in the atmosphere shows almost no potential....

Considering only like 10 percent of hhmans are actually aware, concious and considerare of reality is not a food sign. Its way less than ten percent by the way. Actions speaking louder than words and all that....

38:30 I have a problem with her use of the terms "renewable" and "clean" energy. Are these guys environmentalists or just alternative corporate shills? I just recognized her book cover in the back, she's the lady Eliot Jacobson was mocking.

16:25 "Keeping warming below 1.5..." Ummm, didn't we pass 1.5 like 3 years ago?

We have been geoengineering for 200 years. Pouring smoke and toxins into the upper atmosphere is exactly that.

45: onwards, Mann reveals his reckless political anti science. Speaks volumes as to how politically the climate science community is politically heading us all down a dead end road . Utterly irresponsible, naive , reckless and shameful.

Is the gun loaded or not? Who amongst are willing to bet that the chamber is empty? Answer : those that have a financial incentive to do so. Unmitigated greed, NOT common sense and caution is the motivating force behind the plutocrats (and the politicians that they own) who are the "deciders" of our fate. The futures of 8 billion human beings and untold billions of other living creatures are in the hands of mad men. How does that make any sense at all?

Very nice to see how you didn't acknowledge any of the mistakes made by the authors of said analysis, nor the media who portrayed it differently than it actually is, and of course not the politicians who voted for massive changes with massive economic downsides just because the people are too stupid to understand. You are part of the problem why people think climate change is a hoax. You're intransparent, you don't own up to your mistakes and even agitate the side which did have a very good point.
And by the way +- 50 years is of extreme relevance, it says a lot about you that you framed it that way.

We need to be talking about and teaching about our climate crisis everywhere - At home, at work, in church, in our communitues, social media, mainstream media. We are all pretty much in denial and are not doing anywhere near enough to reduce our emissions.

Michael Mann, going on about progress. Did the amount of greenhouse gases being produced go down? Or up?

- It will be hard to replace the energy density of diesel and asphalt used for industrial and transportation purposes - sources that have helped provide many of the benefits and comforts of "modern" society
- it has been stated that if the land area of the US that grows ethanol for energy uses was covered with solar panels, then that zone could meet all the electrical needs of the entire country

One critical matter is why are climate scientists themselves anti science when it comes to the question of resolving climate change . Every single one speaks of the political solution in the abstract. They sell the lie that capitalism can be the engine of its resolution . Mann supports the Democrats , the party of genocide. Hansen has spent a lifetime sowing the lie that capitalism can solve it via the free market .

Well we only have to look at where we are , and at Trump to know this was/is an idealistic piece of anti science mumbo jumbo . What climate scientists need to understand is that climate change , like recessions and wars is organic to capitalist development , and in its death agony it 'destroys' the productive forces in the interest of surplus value accumulation. It was Marx who made this very clear . That Capitalism was the 'only 'historical system that as an act of ''necessity'' has to periodically destroy the productive forces on mass, because its most fundamental raison d'etre is for surplus value accumulation and 'not' production itself, the latter is 'only' a vehicle which 'must' on occasions be destroyed . In the period of over production and insoluble debt , imperialism seeks to level the feed . To set the clock back to where money contains real value and there is no call on it from a third party.

This is where we are now and US Imperialism , the most insoluble indebted country on the planet is doing precisely that . ''For the ruling classes a world without capitalism is a world not worth saving'' David North.

The resolution of climate change if it is indeed now accomplishable is a matter of socialist revolution... always has been .

They sell to us because we want it and they make sure we want it, extend that to how sophisticated we now are we are willing to accept lies if they are convenient as opposed to an inconvenient truth. ;)

I studied the limits to growth, resource depletion and global warming in 1968. I was in college and created an alternative lifestyle I call, life design. It works, it's fun. Personal Organization is stored energy. An environmental government will not be elected because there is resistance to change, people love money and whoever uses the most fossile fules has the biggest house, the most consumer goods, the most money and prestige. So it is up to each individual to care enough to drop out of the establishments indoctrination.

The scientists here are making the situation more complicated than it has to be, so giving opportunity for those who wish to push disinformation. RCP 8.5 has been set aside because it described the effects of climate change if no one did anything to lower GHG emissions, but individuals and governments are doing things to lower GHG emissions. Therefore RCP 8.5, the do-nothing, business as usual scenario is no longer relevant.

You examine energy production alone. A well-placed discussion of RCP8.5. The top 100 emitters each have customers, which is the main avenue by which people contribute individually to climate change.
Australia has a relatively small population with high per capita emissions. Much of our contribution is of exported coal & gas. We are told that the expansion of AI/data centres here will be 'okay' provided it is done using clean energy.
This is the sort of unsupported rhetoric we can do without. As you point out, new scenarios depict an extended timeline where lowering of emissions (& more importantly atmospheric GHG concentrations) can be delayed by 'business as usual'. Then there is land availability, distance, water allocations & these data centres run 24/7 ... batteries, renewables & gas. Why is their expansion not tied to reductions in GHG emissions?
On a final sarcastic note, I don't think India will become an 'AI superpower'. Nor will Musk settle Mars, despite the lack of atmosphere there. It's business as usual in unusual times. There's never been 8 billion people on Earth before.

The only hoaxes are the tidal waves of disinformation Petrophiles regurgitate against real scientific studies that unequivocally prove the ongoing Anthropogenic degradation of our planet. Wake up & smell the roses before it's too hot to grow them!!!

First it was global cooling and that didn't pan out.
Then it was global warming and that didn't pan out.
So now they just call it climate change and hope people are stupid enough to believe humans are causing it !