Some More News - Some More News: Teaching Jordan Peterson That Climate Change Exists, Part One

Episode Date: August 6, 2024

Hi. Climate change is real. We all know that. But, Jordan Peterson does not. Today, let's go through the science and see if we can convince him. Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/fWUAGfduUlg Hosted by Cody Johnston Executive Producer - Katy Stoll Directed by Will Gordh Written by Helen Floersh Edited by Gregg Meller Produced by Jonathan Harris Associate Producer - Quincy Tucker Post-Production Supervisor - John Conway Researcher - Marco Siler-Gonzales Graphics by Clint DeNisco Head Writer - David Christopher Bell How Climate Change Affects Extreme Weather Around The World: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/ SOURCES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGGlOArzyPZPF-ixj1uIq5KL2qd1jOSWtEz6ES3Pap4/edit MERCH: https://shop.somemorenews.com Give Trade a try and see how you can make better coffee at home. Right now, they’re offering 30% off your first order when you visit https://drinktrade.com/MORENEWS and subscribe. You gotta check out the new softside Luggage from Away. Head on over to https://awaytravel.com/smn Right now, get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription - but only for our viewers - at https://Babbel.com/MORENEWS We’ve worked out a special offer for our audience. Receive 15% off your first order of Arma Colostrum at https://tryarmra.com/MORENEWS or enter code MORENEWS to get 15% off your first order. Right now, Hungryroot is offering Some More News viewers 40% off your first delivery and free veggies for life. Just go to https://Hungryroot.com/MORENEWS to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies. SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/SomeMoreNews/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SomeMoreNews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@somemorenews

Good Weather to you. Welcome to Some More Weather, our new program centered around Cody Schoti about cloudies, cloudies, clouds. We're working out the kinks, the kinkies. And here is some more weather. Floods in Afghanistan and tornadoes in Brazil. That, no, sorry.

Floods in Afghanistan and Brazil, and tornadoes in Tallahassee and Tennessee, and wildfires in Mexico, and what else? Oh, a record-breaking heat wave in India and the Philippines. Wait, wasn't that last year? No, last year and this year. Okay, hold on. And another one in Burkina Faso.

Okay, well, isn't there always a heat wave in Burkina Faso? Okay, you know what? Screw it. Let's just do another episode about Jordan Peterson. ["The Daily Show Theme"] Teaching Jordan Peterson about climate change, part one. So... Huh, Biden dropped out.

Couches? I mean, they do have those folds. I get it. Dolphins too, oh buddy. Okay, so we're just gonna put that on silence. Anyway, hi. Sorry, we were trying to court the 18 to 25 weather demo, but we did absolutely no research on current weather.

Luckily, we did do way too much research on climate change. The thing this episode is about, no, no, no, no, Jordan Peterson, it's about, the episode is about, Jordan Peterson, tell your friends, like and subscribe. Like and subscribe. So here's some news. Jordan Peterson, the guy this episode is definitely about, seems to believe that people who worry about climate change

are part of some cult. It's honestly hard to know for sure based on like the words he says. The climate pseudo religion is based on characterization of nature as something like a hapless, what would you call hapless, defenseless, fragile virgin. Okay, just skip ahead to where he starts making sense. And so the reason that narrative has force is because it draws on underlying religious archetypes and so to characterize the world properly. No, not there,

keep going, I'll wait, I got nothing to do. With regard to the rapacious tyranny, let's say, well, you know, any industrial system or any human organization can exploit the natural world to the point where that's not sustainable and it can become oppressive and tyrannical. That's the evil king, ancient part of religious mythology going back as far back as we can chase it. Boy, he is just not talking about anything. Wow, we should do an episode just about him at some point.

But if you squint with your ears, you sort of see what he's maybe trying to say. I don't know, it's confusing. And that's probably because Jordan Peterson is famously very confused about what climate change even is. There's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word. And that's what bothers me about the climate change types.

It's like, this is something that bothers me about it technically. It's like, climate is about everything. So, okay, but your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables

to include in the equation if it's about everything? Now, to Peterson's credit, it seems like his opinion has congealed since this clip. And what I mean is that he's gone from being weirdly confused about what climate change is to lightly denying that climate change exists. Congratulations, Pete, your Giorgio is showing. Here he is in March

when he invited streaming politics gamer, Destiny, onto his podcast and talked over him for two hours. And at one point he voiced the idea that we just don't have reliable data on climate change and therefore can't be too concerned about it. But right now we're like standing in traffic with our eyes closed saying the car hasn't hit me yet so I don't think there's any coming.

I think it's pretty undeniable at this point that there is an impact on climate across the planet. I just don't know- I think that's highly deniable. We have no idea what the impact is from. We don't know where the carbon dioxide is from. We can't measure the warming of the oceans. We have terrible temperature records going back 100 years.

Okay. Cognitively speaking, I guess that's an improvement from incoherence, but it's not great otherwise. Of course, Peterson was just getting started. And about a month after this video, he went on the show of Catholic podcaster, Matt Fradd, and pushed the idea that science is like this subjective debate and

implying that actually having high CO2 is totally good. Everywhere you look, if you're a scientist, everywhere you look into any given question deeply you run into conundrums and profound sources of disagreement even about what's hypothetically fundamental in the climate Science is a good example of that. That's an appalling scam So if you look at the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last Number of hundreds of millions of years like a pretty whopping time frame. We're at a very very low level We dropped to about 350 parts per million by

say 1850, something like that. Plants start to die at 250, right, because they need carbon dioxide. So we were almost at the point where the plants were going to start to die. That's how low the carbon dioxide levels are. Now they have been increasing. So we've gone from no one knows what climate is all the way to actually it's good when the earth heats up which I suppose it's doing. Also it's an appalling scam. I think he might have no idea what he's talking about.

I mean, to be fair and balanced Jordan Peterson did serve for two years on a Canadian subcommittee on sustainable development for the UN secretary general, and also read a lot of books. One of those books he specifically cited was specifically written to downplay global warming, but sure, man, weird that you say you're qualified

to talk about this, but also seem to have no idea how people measure the climate or what the climate is. And all of these climate scientists are like, he doesn't know what he's talking about. So you know what? I have an idea and it just came to me, just popped into the old beard holder, totally improvised, don't think about it.

But in the spirit of debate, let's see if we can teach Jordan Peterson a thing or two about global warming. This video and the next video is for Jordan Peterson only because he either is pretending for some reason or he just needs somebody helpful and patient and nice to explain it to him. So if you know him or see him on Twitter,

the X, the everything app, be sure to let him know that we made this for him specifically and we're nice. Okay. Jordan only. Is he here? Is he watching? Is he? Oh, hi. Hi, Jordan.

Yeah, no, no, no. Don't say hi back. It's a video. Come on, Jordan. Get comfortable in your lobster bean bag, bucko, because we are going to break down how climate science works and why we know that climate change is real and a problem.

And then in the next video we make, we'll talk about the future of our planet and what we can do about it, if you even care, Jordan. And so let's start with the very basics. Are you ready? Too bad, creepy! How do we measure global warming? Okay, well, for starters,

the global average temperature is... Oh God. The global average temperature is the average temperature of the globe. Okay, that checks out. Excellent. That's why they call it that. Are you writing this down, Jordan?

Good, but more specifically, when climate scientists talk about things like one degree Celsius or five degrees Celsius of warming, the thing that's doing the warming is the global average surface temperature. That's the air temperature taken on land and a few meters above the surface of the ocean. We use this one because at least in the United States,

we've been doing it since around 1870. So we have pretty good records on it. And other countries have similarly long histories of doing that. It's good to be consistent, right? Very science of us. And also because the surface temperature is the most relevant thing to measure.

But who's we? A cabal of weathermen who sacrifice infants to Al Gore's awaiting ma awaiting mob needle-like teeth? That would be kind of neat. But no, no. It's government academic institutions like these, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, UK's Met Office Hadley Center, they spelled it wrong,

Japan's meteorological agency, also Berkeley Earth, and something called NASA, NASA, nasal, spelled that wrong, it should be an L at the end. These institutions and others have weather balloons, satellites, ships, and weather stations all over the world. Physical buildings taking readings. A building is a structure with stuff inside. Write it down, Jay!

NASA alone has at least 20,000 of these weather stations. They collect their data independently, then bring it all together to compare. And historically, their numbers have been pretty in sync. This chart shows all of the data sets from the four biggest agencies all in one place. And while it only includes global temperatures from the late 1800s to about 2012,

you can see that there's not a ton of deviation between the numbers. And the trends overall are exactly the same. That's pretty compelling evidence. Four completely different entities are taking temperatures with different instruments, and they all say the same thing. You see how science is often testable and measurable

and always cool and hip? Of course, in order to make the claim that the global average surface temperature is increasing, you need to have historical context. So how do you get that? According to this climate historian and adorable nerd, there are lots of different ways. Some of the indicators we use, we went to Greenland, we drilled through the ice sheet.

A mile down in Greenland is colder than the top and it is colder than the bottom because it has not finished warming up from the ice age. And how cold that is takes a long time to heat the middle of a turkey in an oven. It takes a really long time to heat a two mile ice sheet. And how cold that is tells us how cold the ice age was. We have this amazing range of indicators across physics, chemistry, biology, isotopes, and more that actually do give us a picture of how the world changed

with a great amount of confidence, to be honest. Hey, that makes sense. He goes on to say this. The history of climate looks more like greenhouse gases than anything else. And of those greenhouse gases, it looks like CO2 has been the biggest control on it. And this is an emerging picture

that has come out in my career, but I think we were surprised. I think we expected other things to be more important, but what we see is CO2 mattering a lot. And then he finishes with this extremely good point. You may know somebody, right? People say, oh, climate's always changed, so we don't need to worry about changing the climate. Right? I have had elected officials tell me

that. Right? The logic is fantastic, right? It is equivalent to nature has always caused fire, so we do not need to worry about arson. It is exactly the same logic, right? We have always died, so we don't need to worry about investigating murders. I'm sorry, this is sort of crazy. But when you look back, they drew those lines where things died. And we could do things that big and we might do them faster. Right. Saying the climate has always changed is a non-argument. And when you think about it for more than a second,

it's a really silly one at that. And it sounds like the science is pretty clear that CO2 was a huge player in climate change historically and that it is now too. That climate historian in the clip, by the way, is Dr. Richard Alley, who published a research paper in 2004 that included the data used to make this chart. If it looks familiar, it's probably because you've seen it

on Twitter where Jordan Peterson, that's you, posted it in 2023 as evidence that the Earth's climate isn't actually the hottest it has ever been. Because look at how high those lines go. The problem here, as anyone who isn't a liar can tell, is that the chart ends in 1885. So, bad job, Jordan. Also, Jordan, didn't you claim that we can't measure

the global temperature, and now you're posting this chart of global temperature like it's evidence of something? Which is it? But that chart is meaningless in the context of debunking climate change. For starters, it comes from a single core of ice in Greenland. Alley himself told fact-checking site VerifyThis.com that Peterson's use of his chart was misleading,

adding that, The existence of warmer times in the past does not cast doubt on the human cause of the ongoing warming or on the dangers of that warming. Boy, he should debate Jordan Peterson if only so we can hear this one brilliant muppet lay into the dumb lying muppet. That's you again, Jordan. Okay, so that's how we measure global temperature. Jordan and we agree.

How did we like link that to carbon dioxide and global warming? Well, I know this might sound silly to dwell on, but I think it's actually important and hopefully kind of cool and interesting. and global warming. Well, I know this might sound silly to dwell on, but I think it's actually important and hopefully kind of cool and interesting. So many climate deniers and liars and weirdos try to frame this issue like we either

don't know anything actually, or like it's some grand conspiracy or hoax that everyone's in on, some new Democrat hoax or whatever, as opposed to it being about scientists doing science for decades and decades, smart people noticing things and doing tests and then discovering more things and testing again,

and then another person discovering something else and so on. It's actually pretty cool how we know things. So did the hoax start in 1856 when a scientist noticed that gas heats up when exposed to sunlight? Is this a hundreds of years long conspiracy of scientists making stuff up,

but also publishing papers that you can read with information that you can verify? Maybe, but probably not. Let's try to explain. How did we discover climate change? So as you saw, we have lots of ways of measuring both global temperatures today and historical ones. But how did we get to the point that we realized

human activity was affecting the climate? Great question, Jordan. Sorry, I should do that again. How did we get the information? How did we know? Great question, Jordan. Sorry, I should do that again. How did we get the information? How did we know? Great question, Jordan. Thanks for staying focused. In 1856, an amateur American scientist

and women's rights activist named Eunice Foote discovered that when the sun hits a closed container, the gas in the container would warm up. She even speculated that if you applied this idea to the earth itself, the whole planet might heat up. She wrote, An atmosphere of that gas would give to our Earth a high temperature. And if, as some suppose, at one period of its history, the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present,

an increased temperature must have necessarily resulted. She would go on to call this the Eunus Puneus. Don't write that down, Jordan. That was fake. You fell for it, Jordan. You're so gullible. It didn't have a name at the time, but what she was describing

was essentially the greenhouse effect where gases in the Earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, absorb radiation from sunlight and warm the planet. Scientist John Tindall, who had access to fancier tools that could measure this phenomenon in much more detail, discovered the mechanisms behind how CO2 concentrations caused the heating of the atmosphere.

Somewhat ironically, Foot and Tyndall made their discoveries about the greenhouse effect at the height of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. That's like inventing the word diarrhea while eating raw chicken you found behind a trash can. at the height of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. That's like inventing the word diarrhea while eating raw chicken you found behind a trash can. A made up story. A made up story.

But at the time, they likely had no idea that the thing they were describing was going to be directly linked to all the societal changes happening around them. But another researcher, Swedish scientist, Sponte Arrhenius, did make this connection in the early 1900s. He even went as far as to say, quote, the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry,

be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. Arrhenius later suggested that this might even be a good thing because it would make the planet's various climates more equable. Adorable? That's just like what you said, Jordan. Remember how you said that having more CO2 might be good?

Like a guy from 100 years ago would say? I wonder if it's bad that you have the same opinion as people who took heroin to cure a toothache anyway. So most scientists completely dismissed these early observations because they thought there was no way humans could influence something as vast as Earth's climate, especially through carbon dioxide.

And like, I get it. The Earth is big. We're tiny, squishy, too many holes. It's hard to imagine we would make a huge dent, especially in the 1900s. I'm pretty sure wolves were still a problem then. Take the reaction to Guy Callender, a British steam engineer and not a fake name

someone made up on the fly, who was thought to be the first to put together that industrialization was causing Earth to get hotter. In the 1930s, he went around collecting records from nearly 200 different weather stations all over the world, along with approximations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the early 1900s.

He estimated that fuel combustion from industrialization had added about 150 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the late 1800s. The records he collected show that the temperature had risen by about 0.005 degrees Celsius per year since then. With the help of some complex physics, Kalender made the case that about 0.003 degrees Celsius of that was attributable to what he called the artificial production of carbon dioxide.

He published a paper explaining his findings in 1938. And while some of the scientists who reviewed his work were impressed, most were skeptical. Understandably, considering the calendar wasn't a trained meteorologist, normally that's a red flag. But more than that, scientists of the time also believe that water vapor, not carbon dioxide,

absorbed the most radiation from the sun, and thus would be responsible for any global warming going on. After all, the atmosphere does contain a lot more water vapor than carbon dioxide, so at the time it seemed like a logical conclusion to draw. That changed in the late 1950s, when research findings using better technology backed up the idea that CO2 from human activities was indeed warming the earth. Hey Jordan, remember when you tried to say that water vapor was actually the thing warming the planet, a read that the putative contribution of carbon dioxide to global warming is less than the margin of error

for measurement of the effect of water vapor. Yeah. Do you know if that's true? That's really sad if that's true. That's true. That's really sad if that's true. Good news, Jordan! That's not true!'s true. That's true. That's really sad if that's true. Good news, Jordan!

That's not true! Don't be sad! But boy, Jordan, a lot of your opinions are a century old. What's up with that? Here's a thought. Maybe it's weird you have to whip out ridiculously old science to make your point. Science that, as I just said, has been disproven for decades now. Peterson saying this in a modern climate conversation

is like if your doctor told you they needed to drain the ghosts from your skeleton to make more room for bile. It is shockingly archaic in a way that should make him, you Peterson watching this, feel ashamed and also be widely discredited because we're actually really good at detecting CO2 in the air. Back in 1956, a scientist named Dr. Charles Keeling

began taking measurements of CO2 in the air atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. He found the amount of CO2 there was rising from one year to the next, which he attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. And while the technology has gotten a lot better since then, we use similar methods to measure how much CO2 is in the air today.

Keeling's son, Ralph Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps CO2 program in San Diego, gives a basic overview of how it's done in this video from 2018. First step is taking an air sample, and this is a glass flask that's been evacuated, it's done in this video from 2018. dioxide is in it. After the flasks are brought back into the lab, they're mounted here where they're analyzed for carbon dioxide concentration by sending the air sequentially, one flask at a time, through an analyzer.

When the analysis is done, we then mount them here where the air is pumped away. The carbon dioxide is retained in these little glass tubes where it's subsequently measured for its isotopic composition. That helps us decide whether the carbon dioxide, say came from a car or it came from a plant or it came from the oceans. Boy, science is so cool and not always, but often definitive.

They are just taking the air from the same spots and measuring the CO2. It's weird that anyone would question this stuff, you know, unless they're a liar. Keeling's findings at Mauna Loa led to the famous Keeling Curve, a graph that shows how concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere change month to month and year to year.

As you can see, over the long term, it only goes up. Go science! Yay! The Earth is dying. Go science! Yay! The Earth is dying. Fire emoji! Woo! Continuing on our super fun timeline, in 1967, a pair of researchers named

Sakura Minabe and Richard Weatherold revealed the first accurate computer model of Earth's climate, which vindicated Callender's earlier theory and showed definitively that CO2 and global temperature are closely related. Their model estimated that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would raise its temperature by about 2 degrees.

When modern scientists compared those figures to how much the temperature had actually risen since pre-industrial times, they found they weren't too far off. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 50% higher in the century since the 1880s, and the temperature had gone up by about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Then in 1985, the evidence got a lot more real. Scientists took samples of ice cores from Antarctica and looked at the bubbles inside of them, which gave an idea of what atmospheric CO2 levels

and the global surface temperature were, hundreds of thousands of years before humans started burning fossil fuels. This endeavor proved successful as only two of the scientists exploded into tendrils before being lit up by a flame thrower. And these icy bubbles made two things crystal clear. First, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere

and temperature were tightly linked. And second, that the levels of CO2 and another greenhouse gas, methane, were higher than any point in at least 800,000 years, give or take. So analysis of the gas in the bubbles showed that things had been pretty stable right up until the early 19th century, when that artificial CO2 production Callender talked about was really taking off all over the world. By the time the Antarctica researchers were doing their thing,

it was 50% higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution. So, hashtag Callender was right. Wild that he predicted climate change and invented the way we measure days and months. What a guy. And of course, Jordan Peterson, if you still don't believe these scientists

and their constant use of the scientific method to determine information about the physical world and our effect on it, perhaps you'll believe fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil and Shell, both of which knew about their effect on climate change during the mid and late 20th century, but hid that information.

This is all to say that no, Jordan, climate change isn't some Marxist hoax devised to implement the woke agenda. It's a real thing that was discovered by smart people and observant people who went, oh, that gas got hot. Why is that? Oh, it's carbon dioxide.

It's getting hot. Oh, that's interesting. Oh, the temperatures rise. They did science. So stop lying to people for whatever your stupid weird reasons are, Jordan. I think that thing had my car keys. We should go to ads.

When we return, we will take this history lesson all the way to today times, by which I mean 20 years ago. And then ask the question we're all excited for, how bad is it? Cool, by which I mean hot, by which I mean too hot, way, way too hot. Hey, check out these ads. Boopy doopy, let's get goopy.

Wow, I'm so sorry about that. Oh my God. I'm that does not represent the rest of this. I promise. I'm so sorry. Listen, I need to tell you about trade coffee. Trade makes it easy to experience America's best specialty coffees from home. Simply tell them what you like and whether you'd like it whole bean or ground and trade

will curate perfect coffee matches in an instant for you. It's the freshest quality you can get anywhere too. Every coffee is roasted to order and ships to you within 48 hours. They got it all goopies. Dark roast, decaf, uncaf, espressos, hot, iced and coffee. They partner with over 50 small roasters so when you subscribe, you are subscribing to America.

You know, I like my coffee black and medium roasted, like the afterlife. That means I rely more on like a fruity flavor. Trade hooked me up with a Peru Las Damas. That's this mix of lemon and caramel and orange, like Halloween, real spooky doopey. So give Trade a try to transform the way you experience coffee at home.

They're offering your first bag free when you visit drinktrade.com slash more news and subscribe. Trade guarantees you'll love your first bag or they'll replace it for free. That's drinktrade.com slash more news for your first bag free when you subscribe. Once more, drinktrade.com slash more news for your first bag free when you subscribe. Once more! DrinkTrade.com slash more news!

Yeah! Hello America! You know, now that I'm running for president, I do a lot of traveling. And one thing I've noticed in my journeys, besides all the corn, is a lot of away luggage. What's with that? Looks great, but this political firecracker sure wishes they made soft side cases. Better for pillows when I'm hopping the rails. Well, guess what? Plot twist! Away absolutely does make soft side luggage's I fooled you good I did I fooled you and just these bags they look good I'll tell you they

sure do they're light and they're beautiful just like America they come in two carry-on sizes and two check sizes plus four colors. You got black and then there's blue. Also pink matches the color palette. And who can forget gray? I can't. Here's what's wild, citizens. Away's luggage is soft, pretty, lightweight, and also durable. Second

plot twist! They're water resistant, flexible, expandable, but won't tear. They even got a proprietary anti-tipping stabilizers so they don't clunk over. This is just... this is really good and solid and soft luggage and I love it. I've already used mine three times in the past month and I wasn't even going anywhere. I just packed it up because I liked it so much. If you travel at all, it is worth investing in a good set of luggage. Believe me, America's next Lord. So you got to check out the new soft side luggage from away.

Head on over to a wayvel.com slash SMN. That's awaytravel.com slash SMN to see the new soft side luggage from Away. Awaytravel.com slash SMN. Vote Katie for Dark Lord of America. Hi, remember me? Host a news show, puppets, beard, dealing with some stuff right now?

For starters, there appears to be an infestation scurrying in my walls and floors, gathering my possessions for what I can only assume to be a nest. And secondly, the planet I live on is slowly dying. So mostly those two problems are what I'm dealing with. And on that subject, we were telling Jordan Peterson specifically

about how we measure the climate and how we know that our warming earth is related to CO2. We brought you through centuries of scientists figuring this exact thing out. And at this point, it's worth noting that everything these people were saying was being confirmed again and again. It wasn't a single scientist or guess, but scores of them.

And once science continued to advance, we saw predictions happening in real time. For example, let's jump ahead, by which I mean behind, to December 2004, when a scientist in the UK named Pete Stott published a very alarming paper showing that climate change could double the risk of a heatwave like the one that had swept through Europe the year prior when it killed at least 35,000 people and probably more than 70,000 overall. We didn't have to wait five decades to see if Stott would be correct.

That risk came to fruition in 2022. The new report says that nearly 62,000, get that around your head, 62,000 people in Europe died from heat related causes last summer. That is enough to fill New York's Madison Square Garden three times. To put that in perspective,

that prediction was made during the Harry Potter craze and came true before the last Harry Potter film was released. Remember the specials of Dumbles? The magical wish ventures of Clibby Spoodwatt. You know the movies, I don't, but you do. Stott's work led to a scientific movement known as extreme event attribution. That is a type of study where scientists

take a major weather event like floods or a severe heat wave and use climate models to figure out whether global warming might have made it worse or even more likely to begin with. Carbon Brief, a climate media company funded by the European Climate Foundation, has a whole database that literally puts hundreds of these studies on a map, which we will link in the show notes. The Shoats! Their analysis found that man-made climate change has contributed to 71% of the extreme weather events around the globe since the European heat wave in 2003.

If you're feeling masochistic enough to go through each of these events one at a time like we were, you'll see that researchers' estimates of just how much climate change factored in varies quite a bit. If anything, maybe that tells you that they're trying their best to be accurate and not just hoax you into thinking every single weather event

is climate change's fault. Also, these kinds of studies are worth paying attention to because they put real tangible experiences to a phenomenon that can otherwise feel kind of abstract, like eating a Jackson Pollock painting. Then in 2007, scientists from 60 different countries descended upon the North and South Poles for the International Polar Year,

a research effort with a deceptively fun sounding name that's also inaccurate because it lasted two years and not one, liars, hoaxers. This was the fourth ever expedition of its kind, but this time around, it had a new and depressing goal, to get estimates on just how much global warming was affecting the polar ice caps. By the scientist's logic,

Earth's coldest places were going to be the first to be affected by global warming. So they were likely a harbinger of what was to come for the rest of the world. So how'd that go? Was it good? In the summer, that ice always melts back, and then in the winter it regrows.

And so we try to monitor what happens in the summer and also the winter. The results that we're releasing today is how much that ice grew back this winter. And what we're finding is this. Over the last six years, it's been growing back less each year. And right now it's missing a Texas-sized area of ice. The other thing though, and this is some other exciting results, is we finally developed the techniques to measure the thickness of that ice. And what we're finding is that the ice is thinner now than it's ever been. Yeah, no. Wild how excitedly he's explaining that the planet is dying. Dude loves science more than he loves us.

Anyway, so yeah, as expected, the researchers' findings from the International Polar Year showed that the polar ice caps were indeed heating up at a faster rate than anywhere else. And the permafrost that normally coated Greenland and the Arctic was melting faster than at any point in the past 10,000 years. Losing the polar ice caps perpetuates global warming Arctic was melting faster than at any point in the past 10,000 years. Losing the polar ice caps perpetuates global warming through what's called ice albedo feedback.

Also the name of my synth pop band, not I've got many fake bands. When there's plenty of ice, radiation from the sun bounces back into space, cooling the planet down. But with less ice to reflect off of, that heat just hangs out. We all know about this, don't we, Jordan? Remember when you were in elementary school

or whatever they call it in Canada? And a teacher or whatever they call it in Canada would say that wearing white cools you down because it reflects the sun or whatever they call it in Canada. Same thing. This is very basic kid stuff. And it's one of many examples of feedback loops

scientists have identified that they think may be making climate change related extreme weather and natural disasters a whole lot worse. It's a spiral like smoking meth to cure a hangover. Sure, it works. Great. But now we don't have any meth. Where are you gonna get your meth, huh?

Jimmy Snaps? Jimmy Snaps died, remember Jordan? Where are you gonna get your meth? And we've seen a lot of these feedback loops in the 15 years or so since the international polar year, along with a lot of new commitments to take action on climate change. The most famous is the 2015 Paris Climate Accord,

a group of rules signed by 193 countries that lays out the action they will take to reverse global warming. They set their target to keep the world from getting 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels on average over the next 20 years. But by some assessments, it's already too late to stop a lot of the worst consequences of climate change from happening. That was the conclusion of a very doomy report issued in 2021 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of policymakers and scientists from roughly the same member countries that signed the Paris Climate Accord. Their 2021 analysis showed that the world is likely to go over its 1.5 degrees target within just 20 years,

meaning that things like ocean acidification, sea level rises, dwindling Arctic ice, and more are basically set in stone at this point. So that's how we know that climate change is a thing, Jordan. I hope that kept your attention. Sorry, I didn't talk about lobsters at all, but they also will get affected by heating oceans actually.

So that's neat to be specific. Lobster populations in Southern New England will dwindle as the ocean gets too warm. Luckily, thanks to even colder waters in Maine, now heating up, all of those lobsters are moving north. Next stop, Canada, Jordan. Is that why you like climate change so much? You want all those lobsters are moving north. Next stop, Canada, Jordan. Is that why you like climate change so much? You want all the lobsters to yourself?

You're so selfish, Jordan. I'm just joking. It's a fun little joke for Jordan Peterson fans. Anyway, how bad have we ruined the planet? Where are we now? Is it good? Well, for the year of our blood serpent lord, 2023, the global average surface temperature came in

at about 15.08 degrees Celsius. That's 59.14 degrees Fahrenheit for all you commoners. And by you, I mean me. You disgust me, me. Ow! To be clear, other global temperature taking organizations got roughly the same number. More importantly, they also found that 2023

was the hottest year ever recorded. 1.18 degrees Celsius or 2.12 Fahrenheit gross over the 20th century average to be exact. The last time that temperature record was broken was 2016, which I'm told was really only eight years ago. That feels wrong. Jordan, did you know that the global average temperature has set new records in three of the past 10 years?

Did you know that? Now, maybe you're thinking to yourself, in your internal Kermit voice, 59.14 degrees Fahrenheit doesn't really sound all that hot. What about the oppressive nature of archetypes as it relates to the worship of Gaia? Something about crones. But Jordan, you have to remember

that's just the average surface temperature. There are gonna be extremes on either end. And even without going to extremes, fragile ecosystems like the ones in the ocean can't handle too much change. Remember what I just said about the lobsters, Jordan? That they went up to Maine, and as Maine continues to warm, they might not survive in those waters either? Well, that drastic change is due to an increase of just 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit every 10 years.

We forget that humans are pretty removed from ecosystems. Lobsters and fish and insects don't have air conditioning and jackets and the new Taco Bell big cheese at Crunchwrap Supreme. They really want to have those things, but they haven't invented them yet. Idiots. They rely on specific plants and other creatures to survive.

And so if one thing vanishes, it creates a domino effect. And so what sounds like a little to us is a lot to them. And while we may think we're removed from that ecosystem, lobsters, for example, affect an entire industry, which in turn affects an economy and so on. Not to mention the slow heat death of the planet, which is all to say that we should probably do something about all of this.

Make lobster sized air conditioners. And so speaking of doing something, that 1.5 degrees target agreed upon by the countries who signed the Paris Climate Accord may seem oddly specific, but it's grounded in science. It's based on how much human activity has warmed the earth since the industrial revolution, when we started spewing loads of carbon into the air to power our shiny thing-making machines. Since then, the average global surface temperature has risen by 1 degree

Celsius. Climate scientists have found that for every one-tenth of a degree of warming, the weather gets more extreme because Earth's meteorological patterns have to shift to accommodate the extra heat. By their estimates, going more than two degrees above pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures will have catastrophic, possibly irreversible, consequences, which is why they set the limit to 1.5 degrees of warming when they wrote up the Paris Accords. Now, this isn't to say that if Earth gets even a tiny fraction above 1.5 degrees hotter, that everything is going to implode. As Sergei Paltsev, Deputy Director of MIT's Joint Program

on the Science and Policy of Global Change writes, there is nothing magical about the 1.5 number other than that is an agreed aspirational target. Keeping at 1.4 is better than 1.5, and 1.3 is better than 1.4, and so on. The science does not tell us that if, for example, the temperature increase is 1.51 degrees Celsius, then it would definitely be the end of the world.

Think of it like exercise or eating healthier. Having only one cronut every day isn't good, but it's still better than having two cronuts every day. Having a cronut every other day is't good, but it's still better than having two cronuts every day. Having a cronut every other day is even better. Whereas having three cronuts every hour for 12 hours or until you stop moving is probably bad. And much like the cronut considerations that haunt me every day of my life,

with the climate, there's a set number you can aim for where ultimately things are trending better instead of worse. That's good news because here's some bad news. In 2023, we kinda already overshot our goal. Too many cronuts. Last year's global average surface temperature was right at 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter

than the pre-industrial average, with most of the major data sets calculating somewhere between 1.36 and 1.54 degrees more. That's the hottest average global temperature since researchers started keeping official records around 1880. It's likely that we will go past 1.5 degrees of warming again in the next four years.

It might even happen this year. Neat! January, 2024 was the hottest January on record and was 1.56 degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times. There's a one in three chance this year will wind up beating out 2023. Cool, we did it guys. But again, as Paltsev pointed out,

that doesn't mean all is lost. It's okay if we go a little too far as long as we actually do something to get back on track in the long run. You know, if we do something. But according to the IPCC's report from 2021, the policies currently in place around the world are projected to result in 2.7 Celsius warming

above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. So that's, I mean, not even gonna look, it's bad, it's bad. I think most people, except for Jordan Peterson, know somewhere in the back of their skulls that we are not doing great when it comes to mitigating climate change. To put it in cronut terms,

we haven't even tried to eat fewer cronuts. And in fact, the cronut industry has taken over our house and is paying us billions of dollars to eat as many cronut as possible. And a lot of people won't even admit the cronut are bad for us. After all, croissants are kind of good for us if you take away all the bread parts.

And so the croissant cancels out the donut. We're at net zero cronut, you see. Anyway, these numbers still feel a little bit abstract. So next we need to ask the question, how bad is it? What is the actual logical conclusion of eating so many cronuts that you can't move? Maybe it's good. Maybe we are rewarded somehow.

Is my phone missing? This sneaky little... Wait a second. I think I hear it. You have reached Sally Mae, the nation's number one private student loan lender. For new applications, press one. Okay, well, I'm gonna go take a sledgehammer to my wall.

Feel free to cut to ads if you want. I don't care. Hi, Katie here. Boy, I'm a real talk a muffin. Yapping and such. Sometimes I just stand there for hours talking to my feet. Man, if they only spoke English. Well, luckily there's a smart and easy way to learn a new language, and that's with Babbel.

That's the sound that learning makes. Spending hundreds of dollars on a private tutor is so pre-Y2K. With Babbel, you get 10-minute lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts designed to learn you good in just three weeks. How? You ask? Inquisitively? Because Babel's lessons are designed by real people for real conversations, real life scenarios focused on the kind of casual interactions you have when you travel abroad or talk at your feet. Everyone wants to learn a second language and take that trip to Chernobyl or wherever you dream of traveling. So why not take action? Give it a shot. And with Babbel's 20-day money-back guarantee there is absolutely

no pressure. And hey, here's a special limited time deal for our listeners. Right now get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription but only for our listeners right now get up to 60% off your babble subscription but only for our listeners at babble.com slash more news get up to 60% off at babble.com slash more news spelled BABBEL wait no spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash more news rules and restrictions may apply Sweet sour cakes it is hard out there Lots of hustle and don't forget the bustle the bustle is the worst part I freaking hate the bustle bustle. I swear to God if you come closer. I will yell again For the God, if you come closer, I will yell again.

We all wanna eat healthy, have time to ourselves, get a water bed, but the bustle man, talk about you! I told you I'd yell, I told you! But get this, Daddy-O, Hungry Root is a super easy way to eat healthy without sacrificing your time. They will send you fresh and high quality groceries, plus delicious recipes and even supplements. It's like having a personal assistant the way what those rich folk do.

With Hungry Root, you dictate your dietary restrictions, favorite foods, and how much time you want to spend cooking. Then they build you a personalized cart with all your grocery needs for the week. Or if you like American freedom, you can totally customize it all. We were born to be free you know You know that free as a loose cat on a waterbed we were born free

Hungry root has everything you get at a grocery store like produce and meat and sweets and snacks and more things I could say in Fact Katie, what did you have last night? What did you have last night? Okay, so last night I had the sweet potato with black beans and avocado and it was sooo Sweet potato with black beans and avocado and it was sooo delicious she says! Delicious she says! But at least with Hungry Root you can stay healthy with the limited time you have and even get some time back. Cut through the hustle like a cheap waterbed exploding around my loose cat. And right now, Hungry Root is offering some more news listeners

40% off your first delivery and free veggies for life of the subscription. Just go to hungryroot.com slash more news to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies for the length of the subscription. That's hungryroot.com slash more news. Don't forget to use our link so they know we sent you. And don't forget to thank the hustle but not the bustle and America or wherever you're from. Hi, did you know that I am like super immune to stuff? More immune than you, I reckon. What, are you just gonna take that from me? That's sass. Huh?

You see, I just discovered Armra Colostrum. I know, it sounds like a cool mech robot, and I don't know, maybe it is, but Colostrum is the first nutrition we receive in this puny life and contains all the essential things we need to thrive. Too bad I'm thriving the best. Are you feeling challenged? You'll never thrive like me. Armora colostrum is a proprietary concentrate

that's sustainably sourced from grass-fed cows from co-op dairy farms. More specifically, they source from the surplus supply so that the baby cows don't miss out. Maybe there's a baby cow in the mech suit. There's just honestly no way to know. According to them, Armra colostrum is designed to boost things like fitness endurance and hair growth and gut health and yes, immunity. Not to mention that Armour goes above and beyond with quality control. High quality, sustainably sourced, colostrum. So stick it to Sassy Katie and try it today.

We've even worked out a special offer for our audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmour.com slash more news or enter more news to get 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmor.com slash more news or enter more news to get 15% off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A.com slash more news. ["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"]

["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"] ["The Last Post"] Hello? Cancel, cancel, cancel loan? Cancel, cancel loan? They hung up.

They were laughing and they hung up. It was automated laughing. Well, I guess I can study art history or something. I'm sure there's a big future in that. Hey, speaking of the future, hi Jordan, welcome back. I know you're probably confused about the puppet stuff, so just go back and watch the show

from the start of the year, you'll catch up. You're not slow, are you Jordan? By now you've been convinced by me that scientists can absolutely measure and detect global warming and its causes, and have been doing that for decades upon decades, to the point that they've set a specific temperature goal for us to hit if we want to mitigate

the damage which we are currently not hitting. And so that brings us to the dark third act of this saga, the night journey into the belly of the whale to put it in your Jungian terms or whatever helps you understand. Here's the big question. How cooked are we? So to be frank, I'd have to fill out a bunch of paperwork, wait for it to get approved, call everybody I know

and be like, it's Frank now. So to be Cody, one of the purposes of this video you are watching is to give an unflinching look at our situation. We're not gonna coat it with something sweet, meth for example. We're not gonna meth coat that cronut, crank nut. But let's start with the good news,

because it's more fun to raise hopes and then crush them. Glass of piss half full, et cetera. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels rose less than 1% in 2022. That's far less than in 2021, when they rose a whole 6%. To be clear, 2021 was a banner year for burning dinosaur corpses, because humanity collectively and incorrectly

decided the pandemic was over and went hog wild. Still, according to the International Energy Agency, a forum operating under the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, one of the main reasons CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning rose so little in 2021 was because of new sources of clean energy, things like solar and wind power, heat pumps, and yes, electric vehicles.

Thank you, Elon. Such a, such a cool truck you've built. What if we did a whole episode just about how your stupid fucking truck sucks shit? God, wouldn't that be a fun episode? Stay tuned. All right, what's most encouraging is that the 2022 figure was even lower than expected

given the seriously energy intensive geopolitical events that took place that year. Like when some European countries had to go back to using coal for power after Russia invaded Ukraine. Really Putin folks in a rough spot there. Also the invasion of war stuff. So that's, well, that's rough. Overall, clean energy tech kept 550 million tons

of CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. In some countries, these statistics are part of a longer downward trend in CO2 emissions. And before you complain about the economy, Jordan, like a whiny loser who likes to make up problems in order to not address the actual problem, you should know that 27 countries managed to cut down on emissions while still growing their economies

between 2012 and 2022. This goes to show that carbon cutting policies don't necessarily have to conflict with economic growth. Although counterpoint, who gives a shit? Economic growth isn't necessarily the best sign of a healthy country. And what good are jobs if we're all too extinct to occupy them?

But I guess our bones will make great oil for whatever alien species takes over. The fossil fueler has become the fossil fuel head. Okay, now let's look at glass of piss half empty. Even with CO2 emissions growing more slowly than in years past, again, 2023 was still the warmest year on record. The United States, which takes second place

in the global ranks of the top CO2 emissions charters, 2023 was still the warmest year on record. The United States, which takes second place in the global ranks of the top CO2 emissions charters, cut its total shards by 2% in 2023. That's not bad, but it's less than a third of how much we need to cut back if we hope to meet the guidelines laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Basically, if we want to stay in line with those goals,

we're gonna have to reduce emissions by almost 7% every year between 2024 and 2030. In case you're confused, because frankly all of this is very confusing, let's put it another way. If humanity wants to keep the globe from warming by more than 1.5 degrees by 2100,

the world will need to cut its CO2 emissions in half by the end of the decade and get to net zero carbon emissions by the 2050s. And just so we're clear, net zero doesn't mean we don't produce any carbon. It just means we'll need to take as much carbon out of the air as we put in. We will talk about one plausible way that can be achieved in part two of this series

along with its inevitable pitfalls. But first, it's time to drag us all further into the pit of despair and ask the question everyone is thinking about, except for you, Jordan. You're browsing loud ties on Amazon. But for everybody else, what's the worst, worst case scenario here?

The worst, worst case scenario. That The worst worst case scenario. That's bad, Jordan. So let's say the whole world wakes up one day and decides that despite everything we've seen so far, climate change just doesn't exist. I don't know, maybe they all got a job at ExxonMobil. We stop trying to cut back on carbon emissions, we scrap all the contracts,

and we keep pumping fossil fuels out of the ground like it's your stomach on your 21st birthday. Congrats! According to Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivet-Karnak, two of the folks involved in developing the Paris Climate Accords, if we did nothing at all, we'd have fewer than 26 years

before the planet turns into an actual hellscape. Two, six. That is not a long time. Vin Diesel will still be making Fast and Furious movies in 26 years, although I'm guessing those films and his name won't be as fun at that point. In their book, The Future We Choose, they lay out in horrific detail what this might look like.

Quote, more moisture in the air and higher sea surface temperatures have caused a surge in extreme hurricanes and tropical storms. Coastal cities in Bangladesh, Mexico, the United States, and elsewhere have suffered brutal infrastructure destruction and extreme flooding, killing many thousands and displacing millions. News stories tell of people living in houses with water up to their ankles because they have nowhere else to go.

Because multiple disasters are often happening simultaneously, it can take weeks or even months for basic food and water relief to reach areas pummeled by extreme floods. Diseases such as malaria, dengue, cholera, respiratory illnesses, and malnutrition are rampant. And so on, and so on. It's bad.

The opening montage to a Mad Max film or the middle section of a Deadpool movie, you get it. This is after the part about violent mass migrations and how all the air tastes like acid, not the good kind. And before we get to the part about melting permafrost, releasing ancient microbes humans have never encountered before, which hopefully kills all those hypothetical people off

quickly because the alternative is less fun. Now, lest you think this is the fictional nightmare fuel which hopefully kills all those hypothetical people off quickly because the alternative is less fun. Now, lest you think this is the fictional nightmare fuel of two randos working for Big Doom, we should point out that everything they described is taken from real concerns of climate scientists, and some of it is already happening. Take the melting permafrost, for instance.

Permafrost is a layer of ice, gravel, or rock at or just under the Earth's surface. It's found in parts of the world that rarely rise above freezing, like Siberia and the Arctic. And there are about 1.5 trillion metric tons of CO2 trapped inside, twice as much as what's in the atmosphere right now.

It's also filled with all kinds of nasty stuff, including some new and exciting strains of bacteria that humans have never encountered before, and others that may already be resistant to antibiotics. Neat. It's like a mystery prize box from a Lovecraftian game show. What's behind door number unfathomable thing, or this other door number unfathomable concept.

There are plenty of people living on top of permafrost already. So if it melts and they catch these gnarly ice bugs, it's not implausible that we'd wind up in a scenario that really does make COVID look like a bad cold. Maybe we'll get Andromeda strained or the happening happened will be happened to. It's very bad is my point, Jordan.

This is the worst, very bad. Lots of death, hard to even describe the scale of death. My comedy news show on YouTube isn't equipped to portray the gravity of the scenario. It's like a million warm bows all crying out. Got it. And that's not what has to happen. In fact, there is a timeline where we steer this clown train into Goodsville. Not Greatsville,

Okaysville. Decentburg. Philadelphia. This is also known as the best best case scenario. So on the flip side, let's say we're successful in cutting CO2 emissions by half every decade for the next 30 years, perhaps by upping our investment in green energy and curbing our addiction to fossil fuels and convincing Jordan Peterson specifically to stop spewing all that hot air. Just kidding, Jordan, couldn't resist.

I'm not kidding, you should shut up. This is the best best case scenario, the one that keeps us under 1.5 degrees of warming. Here's what the world might look like according to Figueres and Rivet Karnak. Quote, in most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. The air is cleaner than it has been

since before the industrial revolution. We have trees to thank for that. The forest cover worldwide is now 50% and agriculture has evolved to become more tree-based. The result is that many countries are unrecognizable in a good way. All homes and buildings produce their own electricity. Every available surface is covered with solar paint

that contains millions of nanoparticles which harvest energy from the sunlight and every windy spot has a wind turbine. They're even making good Star Wars movies again. I added that last part, but yeah, sounds lovely. But to be clear, this is still O'Kaysville. It's not a utopia where the atmosphere is sparkling clean and cars emit a minty vapor that heals all wounds,

both physical and emotional. In other words, this best best case scenario is not totally free from all climate turmoil. We are already in the hole. We've already done the damage. So our ideal situation is still one where we are offsetting that harm. Again, Cro-Nuts.

This is the world where we've stopped eating Cro-Nuts altogether, but still have to deal with decades of eating nothing but Cro-Nuts. We have to get our blood sugar down, exercise, burn down the local bakery, and so on. In the world imagined by those authors, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere have nowhere to go.

So they continue wreaking havoc in the form of extreme weather. All that wild weather creates resource shortages and makes the existing wealth gap even bigger than it is now. Also, those Star Wars movies aren't amazing. Like they're just pretty good. Like they plan them in advance

so they feel more cohesive and intentional, but ultimately Star Wars is for kids and kind of boring, you know? It's time to move on. But still, that weather and the wealth inequality would both be much less extreme than they would if we did nothing at all. Even if it's not perfect,

this is still something we should aspire to. This is the obtainable goal, the dream on that low bar. Let's talk about what happens if we don't quite meet that goal, the middle point between total victory and Cronut's defeat. The best-ish case scenario. This is the scenario where we overshoot the Paris Climate Accord, but still stay below two degrees.

At this point, even if the whole world managed to achieve net zero carbon emissions, the Clown Train has already left the station for some consequences. For one, it's clear from climate change models that the ocean is gonna keep rising no matter what, which is bad news for coastal communities, but great for any mermaids obsessed with human objects,

even woke mermaids. Still, just how much the ocean will rise is to some degree up to us. By the IPCC's models, sea levels will go up about two to three meters over the next 200 years if global warming doesn't go past 1.5 degrees. But if the world gets warmer by two degrees, that could double to up to six meters.

If things stay that way for long enough, that will completely melt the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica forever. No back seas. And if we get really freaking wild and heat shit up by five degrees, the ocean would rise by as much as 22 meters and wipe out entire countries and parts of other countries.

Again, great news for that one freak mermaid. And I guess any water world cosplayers out there, bad for everyone else, bad for most people. But it doesn't have to be that extreme. If we overshoot the Paris Climate Accords goal by a little bit and the world winds up about 1.8 degrees Celsius warmer by the end of the century, two things are still pretty well boned,

coral reefs and alpine glaciers. With 1.8 degrees of warming, scientists estimate that about 10% of the world's coral reefs and about 20 glaciers. With 1.8 degrees of warming, scientists estimate that about 10% of the world's coral reefs and about 20% of glacial sheets will still be here by 2100. Or to put it another, perhaps more urgent way, 90 and 80% will be gone. Gone, Jordan!

Are you listening? Or did you get distracted by the mermaid thing? Are you writing a lecture on mermaids and Jesus right now, Jordan? Anyway, that's obviously better than the worst worst case scenario where the reefs and glaciers are completely destroyed, but it's still pretty devastating. So, all right.

That's the spectrum of possibilities, the rainbow of terror, which would be a good name for a Halloween drag show. Someone should do that. So where are we on track to land? The worst, worst case scenario, the best, best case scenario, or the best-ish case scenario?

Obviously, it depends on us, but also obviously, we can kinda guess what humans will do. So let's open this mystery box and stick our entire faces inside and hope it's not a bunch of razors. The most likely scenario. It's kinda razors. So like we said earlier,

the world has been knocking out warming records left and right over the past 10 years. And 2023 was the hottest one yet. But we are at least trying to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, which is why, by scientists' latest estimates, we're probably not going to wind up in the worst, worst case scenario.

Congratulations-ish, good-ish news, but we're unlikely to do what it takes to reach the best, best case scenario either. Less good news. And nor are we on track for the best-ish case scenario, the one where we don't really reach our climate goals, but we don't go too far past them either. Ungood news.

That puts the needle a little above that we're all gonna die level, but just shy of the most of us won't die level. Like it's not moonfall or 2012 where we all spectacularly perish, but it's also not the core where most of us get saved and the problem is solved. Remember the core, Jordan?

Remember it? They hacked the planet in multiple ways. Jordan, watch the core. So instead of reaching those goals, according to a United Nations report published in 2022, the policies as they stand put us at about 2.4 degrees of warming by 2100. If emissions rates don't change, that rises to 2.8 degrees. So what does that look like for us?

Well, even under the best best case scenario, extreme weather was still the norm. A scenario where we go up to 2.4 degrees Celsius means it gets even wackier, if you find death wacky. Even the less than extreme temperature rises we're currently seeing are messing with weather patterns pretty profoundly. Case in point, in the United States,

2023 saw the highest number yet of natural disasters that each caused over a billion dollars in damage. The previous record was 2020. High cost disasters are a general trend that's been going on for decades with the worst effects in the Southeast United States. Now these numbers aren't just driven by climate chaos. As the NOAA pointed out in its report,

they're also due in part to population growth in areas that weren't previously quite as populated, which means there's gonna be a lot more property damage when disaster strikes. Still, the disasters are a hell of a lot worse than they were in the past. For example, some parts of Texas and Arizona were the hottest they've been since record keeping began.

And Texas, as a whole, went through its second hottest summer and its hottest year overall. I mean, it is Texas, so it whole, went through its second hottest summer and its hottest year overall. I mean, it is Texas, so it's gonna be hot, but that heat is starting earlier in the year and lasting longer. Thank goodness they have really competent people in charge who aren't obsessed with punishing migrants and pointless culture war garbage.

Can't feel the heat if you're not woke. It's not just that these disasters are happening. It's that they're happening so often that it feels like they never end. You don't even have time to recover from the last one. Look! It's not just that these disasters are happening. It's that they're happening so often that it feels like they never end. You don't even have time to recover from the last one. You get numb. Last summer, for example,

while Arizona baked in a killer heat wave, floods in the Northeast trapped people in their homes. Less than a month later, a massive wildfire cooked parts of Maui and California got hit by a super rare tropical storm. Meanwhile, outside the United States, northern China witnessed extreme flooding and torrential rainfall at the highest levels in 140 years.

Sure, summer is peak disaster season in many parts of the world, including the United States, but the time between the big ones is getting shorter and shorter. According to the NOAA, there were just 18 days on average between disasters that caused over a billion dollars in damage between 2018 and 2022, compared to 82 days between them in the 1980s. And remember earlier in the episode when we talked about extreme event attribution, where researchers calculate just how likely it is that an event was made worse by climate change?

Scientists think that was the case for all the disasters we just mentioned, along with plenty of others that went down during the rest of the year. And of course, all that extreme weather and the natural disasters it causes are bad news for farming and agriculture. A report from a farming advocacy group

called the American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that 2023's natural disasters and severe weather caused nearly $22 billion in crop losses. And that's just in the United States. While it's impossible to calculate just how much drought and floods and extreme heat cost farming operations elsewhere in the world, we do know that the countries that are already at the highest risk of food insecurity

are also the ones that are most impacted the highest risk of food insecurity are also the ones that are most impacted by climate change, even now. For example, a long drought caused by climate change caused an ongoing famine in the Horn of Africa. Also, before anyone says it's Jordan, yes, higher levels of CO2 is actually good for plants. There's even some evidence that climate change might even improve agriculture in some parts of the world.

But those benefits will be offset by the fact that extreme weather and heat is gonna fuck up the vast majority of places that supply the world's food. Jordan seems to think that more CO2 will just make the entire planet a beautiful lush green paradise. Plants can't thrive if they're bulldozed by a hurricane or if they're on fire.

So in short, with everything as it stands, we have a lot more famine to look forward to by the end of the century, especially in the places that contributed least to manmade climate change. The good news, if you want to call it that, is that it probably won't be an extinction level event, or rather climate change won't be.

Technically, we could still potentially Jurassic world ourselves and make all of this moot. And frankly, having dinosaurs back would actually be less horrifying than the reality, unless Chris Pratt's doing the voices. But I would much rather die from getting trampled by a Stegosaurus than famine. Man, why couldn't this video be about dinosaurs?

I guess in a really abstract way it is about them, their bones, so that's neat. I broke your toilet. No, no, no. Little shit. I'm not gonna eat it. I really wanna eat it. I'm gonna get some traps and then I will discuss

with myself if I'm gonna eat them. I'm not gonna eat them. I'm gonna eat them. I'm gonna trap you. I'm gonna trap you fuckers. Okay, so Jordan, I really hope this cleared up some confusion for you. I know you don't want to admit it's a problem

because you don't trust anyone but yourself to solve problems or think about stuff. And I know it's really depressing to take a hard unflinching look at the actual science behind climate change. It's like turning on all the lights after a rave. No one wants to see that. And so I think it's a lot easier

for people to just not think about it at all, or tell themselves that it's really not that bad. I mean, in your case, Jordan, it's more likely that you're just getting paid to lie to other people, but to the other people who tell themselves it's not that bad, I get it. Most people can't really do anything to stop it,

not directly at least. But the other thing you can't do is deny it. I mean, you can, apparently, but in order to do that, you have to either completely shut out scientists or create an elaborate narrative where they are all out to get you because ultimately climate change is just a thing that's happening.

Just look at this entire video. We never spoke in vague emotional terms or brought up political ideas to justify these beliefs. It's not a political issue. It just is. Researching this video is no different than researching gravity or the earth being round. These are just basic scientific facts.

And if anyone is denying them, they are either very, very misguided or a liar with an agenda that doesn't care if billions of people are killed? Which one are you, Jordan? So this sucked. Bummer episode. But here's a question. Is there anything we can do about climate change

at this point? Well, in our next episode, we're going to answer that question. We're going to talk about the path forward. And unfortunately, the many people blocking that path. I'll give you a hint, they rhyme with sex on scrotal. So stay tuned, Jordan, because that video is also for and about you specifically.

Tell your friends. Like and subscribe, partner. You're the only cool one. call you cow bow little cowboy cowboy you're alright What do you ride? What do you wrangle? What do you want to do today? I got time now, we're done. You want to hang out? I'm gonna get you!

I'm coming after you, my man! Oh, we're stomping down on the little guys! They go squish, squish, squish! All day long! Okay, I'm gonna go get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you!

I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! I'm gonna get you! Oh, we're stomping down on the little guys. They go squish, squish, squish all day long. Okay. Hi, how's it going? Just kidding. That was miming.

See, at least this one's fine. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. He's doing great. Like and subscribe like he said in the video. Like and subscribe like he said in the video. Be sure to check out our patreon.com slash some more news. We've got a podcast called Even More News. We've got this show as a podcast.

It's called Some More News. Check both of those shows out at the podcast place and on YouTube to watch on video. You know, you saw this one just now. We got merch with, I guess guess their grand horror on stuff I don't even know what's going on with this relationship or this plot but we're gonna find out I promise you that so yeah merch store honestly the only thing I have left to say is we go stomp, stomp, stomp on the little guys. They scream. He's fine.

On the Jordan Harbinger show, you'll hear amazing stories from people that have lived them from spies to CEOs, even an undercover agent who infiltrated the Gambino crime family. You're about to hear a preview of the Jordan Harbinger show with Jack Garcia, who did just that. My career was 24 out of 26 years was solely dedicated working undercover. I walk in, I'm in the bar.

Now there's a bar made there, good looking young lady. She's serving me, Julia, what would you like? I usually, my drink was, give me a kettle, one martini, three olives, glass of water on the side. I finished the drink, the guys come in, I'm gonna go, go in my pocket, take out the big wad of money, bam, I give her $100. If you're with the mob, I say, hey Jordan, you're on record with us.

That means we protect you, nobody could shake you down. We could shake you down, but you're on record with us. For more we protect you. Nobody could shake you down. We could shake you down, but you're on record with us. For more on how Jack became so trusted in the highest levels of the Gambino organization, check out episode 392 of The Jordan Harbinger Show.