Sabine Hossenfelder 
Want to restore the planet’s ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my code SABINE210 will get the first month for free at https://planetwild.com/r/sabinehossenfelder/join/210
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest video saving the cute and fluffy Little Owl https://planetwild.com/r/sabinehossenfelder/m18/210
Climate scientists on social media are constantly pushing the idea that their research demands action. On one hand, climate change is a very real and pressing issue. On the other hand, scientists should remain neutral. So is it ever okay to mix research with activism?
The two comments are here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00126-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00171-9
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ http://quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
🖼️ On instagram ➜ https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#science #sciencenews #climate #globalwarming
source
About The Author
What the heck are you doing Sabine? This video basically says "science is BS" to any layman watching this. I hope you do not think so as if you do, all your credibility is lost. If you want to point out problems within science, a more nuanced approach would work better.
insanity LOVES COMPANY, ESPECIALLY IN ACADEMIA ! prefect
i would MUCH rather live on a planet where crocodiles have returned to Antartica than on a Snowball Earth.
More fuel for your "Science is dying" nonsense. You aren't helping anything at this point, except your algorithm.
its fine for scientists to have a desired outcome
but the peer review process should protect against it
there should be no reward for a peer review that accepts a paper
only peer reviews that point out flaws and mistakes, or even completely reveal the scam should get rewards
because thats the purpose
not to put another name and some fake validity on a paper, but to show its trash
until scientists learn to hate eachother again can we get no progress
most of humanities scientific progress was out of spite
look how we have ground to a halt in this time of peace and niceties
Allowing these environmental issues to be used as political tools and weapons is a huge mistake.
Seeking to force people to conform to the ideals of others is a huge mistake.
Presenting themselves as sole owners of everything is a huge mistake.
You're a brilliant physicist. But you're starting to go down the woo path.
Your personal experiences are one thing. And like hearing about them. But you can't extrapolate them to the nth and paint over everything with a broad brush. Pointing out flaws in the data is fine but you're not just doing that. You're speaking with unjustified authority.
When you try to argue your way out of verified science, you have stopped doing science. Arguments are not testable evidence. You know that.
It would be one thing if you put up an alternative hypothesis, but you don't. You just complain. That also isn't science. It's ok to have opinions on things outside your field but you have an obligation to be fair to your followers.
Most people see you as an authority figure. To use that status to complain, as if you're spouting facts is not being honest to those people.
You've let this fame go to your head.
I'm just waiting for you to jump on the pseudoscience wagon. You're only a couple of years away at the rate you're going.
The real problem with scientists who advocate policies is corruption. Policies always involve the spending of taxpayer dollars. Policies are also always carried out by politicians and their functionaries who usually don't know their left foot from their head. The money generally goes to the people who paid for their campaigns so they can get rich and pay for the next campaign. I challenge anyone to find a grant that does not require a proposal to fit into some political box. In the case of climate change or DEI, scientists must toe the line in order to qualify for grants from these politicians and political donors. If they do not play the game that keeps the tax money turnstile spinning, they will never get funding to continue their research. I have struggled with this over and over again in multiple scientific fields. It is wrong, and it will never be fixed until we remove government funding from science entirely.
You can be a scientist or an activist, not both with any credibility.
I'm getting kind of tired of these videos that pseudo-pander to the conservative "skeptic" base you seem to have cultivated. I know you believe that the world isn't doing enough for climate change, and I know the point you're making in the video is cogent, but on first blush, which is the only blush most of truther types are going to have with the video, it sounds as though you're bolstering their position. Really trying to have your cake and eat it too. The world needs less eye-catching bait that buries the lede and hides the nuance so the willfully ignorant can continue to bumble through their feed unchallenged.
Unsubscribed. Take some of your points bit disagree with others. However, seeing the climate deniers pile in behind you moaning about woke stuff means I’m not supporting you any more.
scientists keeping silent, when they see people chanting" we have to believe scientists" is an insult to scientific method.. as simple a s that .there is something rotten here…
They were always activists more so than scientists. It's why >50% of what is now said by actual scientists about climate change should be taken with huge amounts of saltgrains. It is always about the outcome, trying to defend the narrative. In reality, we still have no f'ing clue to what extent climate change is manmade.
6:00 absolutely not ! They should provide a framework of data and facts that allow others to base policies on those facts and data. They should not become political actors. Keep in mind it is mostly the media apparatus making very bold claims based on cherrypicked scientific studies. Remember how the world was going to end in 2012? Remember the predictions of 'An inconvenient truth'? Very few, if any, scientists will claim they have any direct evidence of manmade climate change, let alone claim it is irreversible based on actual facts. Obviously common sense dictates that when you pollute, you'll create problems in the sense of pollution which will have an impact. No one denies that. But most models used by climate activists are not rooted in solid research and evidence at all.
Seems to be a trend in the comments that scientists should be banned from voicing their opinions on topics outside their speciality. Does that carry over to non-scientists? Can no one express an opinion on anything that they are not a qualified expert on? That means no one can talk about anything, including politicians and the majority of the public.
Any discussion about Climate Change shouldn't exist because the term is Global Warming.
When discussing the horrendous effects of global warming, one should use the "Precautionary principle" in addition to the data.
In other words, one shouldn't discount the value of coastal cities using financial discounting rates (as they do these days to calculate cost-benefit).
Mankind cannot just move around and write off our coastal cities. Refugees cannot just move to another country and start anew.
"Neutral Science" is not even definable.
The only reasonable reaction is that:
A) I am seeing a trend.
B) I have to do anything until I see a little of stopping the trend or reversing the trend.
In other words, actions must be taken until one can precisely figure out the planet's long-term weather dynamics.
In other words, if 1.5 degrees is the goal, one must do whatever is possible to achieve it. Period.
We are running in the dark. We don't know how much work is required to achieve a survival goal, and it is irrelevant whether the research is biased.
None of the actions taken up to now showed any result.
By the way, I believe it doesn't make sense to speak about Global Warming if one doesn't use Population Planning. If we return to the population we had in 1970 (3 billion), we wouldn't have a global warming problem.
Who is finding it awkward ? THE U N ! Scientists need to K N O W . Theories and models are so much candy floss
Hypothesis–>Experiment–>Measurement–>Results–>Verification or rejection of hypothesis–>Repeat.
Science, any knowledge for that matter, has no other purpose than serve PRACTICAL SUSTENANCE OF EVIL FREE LIFE ON THIS EARTH.
EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH.
Hence there is no need to separate the purpose of science from ACTIVISM.
It is this destructive flaw in the fundamentals of science that facilitates it serving WEAPONS MANUFACTURE (its current raison de ètre) and POLLUTION, in the first place.
Unless scientists, especially the ones who glorify and promote it – like you personally – realize this crucial FACT and change course accordingly, all the LWAS OF NATURE it invents (yes!) would inevitably join the epicycles, deferents and eccentrics of the pre Copernican era in the dumpyard of history in the very near future.
Lack of realization of the above crucial fact is the reason why the human race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon in such way that it PREDICTS accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which in fact SHOULD be the sole purpose of all knowledge.
Knowledge can never be acquired without that clear purpose. All such knowledge would inevitably lead to destruction.
Current ideal of science, "knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity" along with its misguided criteroon of proof, "PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments snd/or observations" gifts the scientists the very same harlot's prerogative (authority without responsibility) that all conventional religions gift to their priests.
So long as you don't know where you want to go, then no road can be wrong, neither can any be right.
I live in Utah and through geologic time, the entire region has been underwater and dried up 29 times. And, there will more than likely be 29 more that this will happen.
The cataclysmic forces at work include volcanism and astronomical (asteroids hitting earth) that have a profound and adverse effect on the climate!! Example. The Toba super eruption that occurred 74 thousand years ago almost extinct mankind. Estimates were only 10 thousand human beings surviving and most plant and animal life decimated. The earth experienced a volcanic winter for about 6 years.
As the scientists and experts say, somehow burning fossil fuels is going to end planet earth. I’m all in for environmental stewardship, but driving cars, flying planes, and ships engaged in commerce will ever have the devastating results of another Chicxulub asteroid or a Toba super eruption.
More asking the questions than debating a side. With us sitting in the gravitational pull from the sun a lot of space material falls from the into our atmosphere creating gasses or adding to them. The numbers seem to be less and less every year, it used to be 600,000 metric tons of material hitting the earth yearly.
The amount of CO 2 from the yearly 33,756,295,000 barrels oil collected ceicdata.comand 75% epa.gov were burned as gasoline diesel or jet fuel would be about 6284 cubic miles of CO2. Or .11% of the atmosphere. I divided that by 3 and multiplied by 100 years. Over the last 100 years that about 350% of the atmosphere.
Our planets gravity mostly only allows for stable O2 N2 and COx molecules in our atmosphere. And the gravity between those compounds will force less dense molecules up. Look at any youtube video of someone lighting a gasoline fire . The fire instantly jumps high into the sky chasing the molecules squeezed upwards. Look at fog, the base molecules can hold minute water molecules in suspension but as soon as the energy increases the water is let loose. The fumes of larger molecules are squeezed up in the higher atmosphere where they are more easily broken down ( my opinion) by Sun emissions and oxidation from material entering the outer atmosphere. ( my opinion).
In Stephen Wolframs talk you posted he had a chart of the rotational speed of the earth. It kind of looked like a heartbeat. The only reason the earth rotates is the electrical right hand rule. A Voltage through a magnetic field creates a force that pushes on the atmosphere. So the earth speeds up as the atmosphere gets more dense and then it’s too much for the earths gravity to hold and we have planetary flatulence into outer space and the earth slows down again as shown by his chart.
The planet’s atmosphere is not a closed system.
So my questions are
How much of this is taken into account the models or is it?
How much are the base atmosphere molecules attraction to each other taken into account.
How much of the breaking down of larger less dense molecules like gasoline fumes and the resulting smaller more dense molecules being returned to the lower atmosphere by gravity are taken into account.
And didn’t the earth take a turn at the outer edge of the Milky Way a few years back heading back towards the center of it.
Wouldn’t that mean the space debris entering the atmosphere would increase?
Is there an increase in energy from the big bang hitting us since we turned similar to a doppler effect of sound?
Is that in their models?
Just asking.
From my dealings with Climate Activist I learned to just stay away from them as they simply haven't a clue about much of anything as the propaganda that is spread around the world as a firm grip on them to the point they can't tell right from wrong and flee from the correct ways clinging to the wrong ways through their actions.
I attempted to show them a way in which we humans can live in harmony with all things by making use of water as nature does and was promptly banned from their online platforms as a true green solution simply isn't something they are interested in. Nope, I learned the hard way that they are mostly spoiled entitled brats whom would die without Capitalism and it's ever enslaving ways.
The technology I showed them gives the individual full control of their own energy needs but they would have none of it as they simply can't make a profit it people were given full control of their energy needs. Like most capitalist they hide behind words, break promises, and always turn and look the other way when when things get in the way of their collective interest. They did their best to put me down to the point where I could no longer stand but I beat the odds and am yet still standing and planning to do great things for the people whom need it the most.
I rejected climate change theories when I saw that the vast majority of those promoting them belong to the extreme left progressive camp
I find the parallels between covid and it's response and climate change and it's response very interesting.
https://youtu.be/70vYj1KPyT4?si=mlAv789arjk4QGOG
04:16 – not a problem. Even Hitler could have made some scientifically accurate statements that are proven through research. Wouldn't have meant that everything he did was correct.
I bet there are even scientists who just look at the Holocaust from a physics standpoint and don't get why it was wrong.
As smart as she is its probably never occurred to Sabine that much of the earths excess heat may be caused by a hot German physicist being on you tube.
👍
It's fine to have opinions, but you HAVE TO separate them from the facts – otherwise you're not a good scientist at all.
Good episode, but it took you a LONG time to get here Sabine…….