Your video misses global footprint per/capita for every country.

It's has been pretty well known that we won't succeed when it comes to climate change, even with this year with a big down turn in gdp it's not enough to keep us under 1.5 degree celsius. I don't think we will manage 2 degree celsius, but might just succeed keeping the warming below 3.

If the world were serious about climate change we would drastically build out nuclear power, water power and public transportation. Put a big carbon tax and we should had tried electrified so much we just could. This should had been done in 1990 it's 2020 and we still not doing this, even this wouldn't be enough to solve the climate crises.

I think now only geoengineered will save us, specfically solar radiation management.

Wearing a mask is the work of the devil!
"my rights", and its all a hoax anyways!

This is a pandemic that will kill likely over 300,000 in the USA before 2021.
And you have people that wont even wear a mask, or wash their hands, or try to social distance.
People worried about conspiracies, and thinking its some plot to mass vacinate people and chip them.


Try convinceing people that what we do today, will effect the world 25-50 years down the line.
That there might be riseing sea levels, more desert, less viable lands for agriculture, less clean underground water,... ect.
Mass migrations and possible starvations, will come from it.  More extreme weather (huricanes, tornadoes, floodings, bush fires ect)

People today? Why should I care?

Its doomed.

Im not convinced politics can even save us from ourselves anymore, much less the climate of the world.

Imagine putting up gigantic solar shields, into space to "cool" down the planet.

Imagine if the EU + US did a project like that, and decided "no more sunlight for china".
We need to cool the planet... Wars will be fought over who has to take on this burden, and for how long, daily ect.

Also what are the effects on the ocean if you decide to do this over it?
Scientists would have to work out scheduals and likely "spread the pain" around, to be fair on a world scale.
(we could take turns haveing "sunlight" days)

Also if the issue is the "balance" of our climate is gone of of whack.... Im sure us ourselves trying to manage it, will be great.
Unforseen consequences that could prove disastrous are bound to ensue.

The idea of toying around with something that could lead to our extinction, when we only have this one planet, and dont know how to live elsewhere yet, seems like a huge gamble to take.

Serious question: Has anyone of you ever seen a chart with, say, the last 1000 years on the X-axis, showing two separate lines:
1. The atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
2. the total number of humans that populated the earth
...at that point of history?

I'd be very interested in seeing such a chart, I assume the two curves would look quite similar.

I find it somewhat strange that there is hardly ever any discussion that there might be some slight correlation between
- exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions
and
- exponentially increasing human population

Somehow, most people seem to believe that when it comes to CO2 emissions and climate change, we just need to change some minor things here, some minor things there, and everything would already be fine.

Al Gore said in 2008 that in 10 years the ice polar cap would be gone. It's 2020 and it's still there.

Soon this thread article will be on the list of all climate change predictions that never happened.

Read all of them here:
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/18/doomsdays-that-didnt-happen-report-compiles-decades-of-dire-failed-climate-predictions/

Among them, according to a Guardian article, Britain would have a Siberian climate in 2020. Other article stated that the Artic would be ice-less by 2018. All stupid predictions.

Global warming is one of those things that just makes me feel miserable, like we're going towards a hastened extinction and yet almost nothing is being done about it.

Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. The Guardian is a media outlet, not a scientific one. Both politicians and the media often have trouble accurately representing scientific consensus. As such, it is advised to handle with care when reading interpretations of the science by second hand, non-scientific sources, and further is is generally ill advised to use these second hand interpretations as evidence of flaws in the science.

Additionally, climate science is a fairly large field. There will always be individuals making fringe opinions that are contradicted by a large body of evidence. While "a New Ice Age" was all the rage in the media back in the '70s, even back in the early days of this type of science, a warming trend was by far the more common prediction:

Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?

It's always like this:

Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.

The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.

This is nonsense.

The double standards here:

Thread OP sources:
Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse”

Highlighted: Australia's top scientist.

This is ok.

Now, I post:

U.S. scientist sees New Ice Age coming. (Source: https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/18/doomsdays-that-didnt-happen-report-compiles-decades-of-dire-failed-climate-predictions/)

Highlighted: US scientist.

Then I'm accused I'm sharing untrustworthy journalist interpretation.

Nonsense.

Every piece of news that says a scientist said the world will end is ok. When we show that the same sort of piece of news has been going on for decades all wrong, then it's not ok.