Watch Full “Before The Flood” Climate Change Documentary With DiCaprio, Musk

NOV 7 2016 BY JAY COLE 97

National Geographic Channel has made the Leonardo DiCaprio documentary on Climate Change available for public viewing online…at least for a time.

Update: Despite an initial PR from National Geographic that read “Watch Before the Flood for Free, Everywhere” including on popular platforms like Facebook and Vimeo, it now appears to behind many paywalls.  That said, the above/cropped/foregin version of the filmed can still be watched…for a limited time we imagine.

Alternatively, one has to attempt to navigate Nat Geo’s official channel to access the video here (depending on your provider).

“Before the Flood” maps  the actor’s adventures around the world exploring the topic, and from the United Nations where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier designated the actor and environmentalist as a UN Messenger of Peace with a special focus on climate change.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk talks to Leonardo DiCaprio about climate change (via Nat Geo Channel)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk talks to Leonardo DiCaprio about climate change (via Nat Geo Channel)

“Join Leonardo DiCaprio as he explores the topic of climate change, and discovers what must be done today to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.”

Joining DiCaprio in exploring Climate Change for a time, specifically in relation to the fossil fuel industry and the needed switch to sustainable/renewable energy, was Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk (which you can pick up directly from the 57:00 mark).

Video (below):  Full video of DiCarpio’s opening remarks at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit in New York City, and more recently (2nd video below) DiCaprio’s statements from the High-level Signature Ceremony for the Paris Agreement earlier this year.

Categories: General, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

97 Comments on "Watch Full “Before The Flood” Climate Change Documentary With DiCaprio, Musk"

newest oldest most voted

Excellent documentary. Definitely recommend if you are interested in seeing the real effects of climate change, hearing from experts who study it, and hearing from natives around the world who are already seriously impacted.

Exactly:
-Massive Arctic Meltdown going on Today.
-Massive Palm Oil Plantation Expansion, Burn Down Rate: 1 Day = Total US Carbon Output per Year.
-India expanding solar.
-And Leonardo Dicaprio gets chewed out by India for not only using a lot of energy, but using MORE energy every year with Bigger Homes.

I see your point but they see an irony here. They are pointing out the fact the guy has mansions around the world that he will spend a couple days each year at. Flying a half empty G5 around same world preaching against climate change completely ignoring what he is doing himself… He is just another Hollywood hypocrite and I would agree with that. He is no different than Al Gore and the rest of them. Practice what you preach celebrities.

India isn’t talking specifically about Decaprio.
They’re talking about the Massive Buildout of McMansions, while the world burns.

We could be building Zero Energy Homes.

She’s pointing out that the US consumer uses 10-60 times more energy then other countries, and it’s not improving, it’s getting worse.

Your thinking has a problem.

If every rich person (think top 0.1%) decided to emit the same as a poor Indian in India, we’d still have a serious global warming issue. The rich make up a small fraction of total CO2 emissions (think 0.5%).

The vast majority of Global Warming is caused by providing basic services (electricity and transportation) to average citizens in first world countries (read USA, Western Europe, Russia, the Middle East, China, and India).

The rich aren’t the problem, it’s the shear number of people in the developed world. The developed world needs to shift to a non-fossil fuel economy.

That’s sheer numbers, but yes. The problem isn’t just rate of consumption; it’s rate of consumption x population in a world plagued by growing overpopulation.

Eliminate overpopulation, and potentially everyone can be rich, with plenty of resources for everyone. Refuse to deal with overpopulation, and everyone needs to be desperately poor to live within the carrying capacity of Earth’s ecosystem.

Given the choice between living in the Dominican Republic and living in Haiti, I think most would choose the former. What’s the difference between these two countries on different sides of the same island? One has managed its resources and limited its population; and the other has squandered its resources and made no effort to limit population.

Sheesh. Al Gore has a Platinum Leed Home.
He did spend is money where his mouth is.

http://greenguard.org/uploads/images/LEEDv4forHomesandMidriseBallotVersion.pdf

You’ll note, LEED not only covers energy efficiency, but the heath of your family.

Notice he only made these changes after he was busted… his utility bill was over $30,000. Selling his tv network to Al Jazeera that is owned by Qatar. Where does Qatar obtain their wealth… on top of that he pushed the deal to get done before the end of the year when the taxes were going up. He of course is more than happy to sell “offsets” to justify his indulgences (private jet travel perfect example) and continue to enrich himself speaking from both sides of his mouth. You make my point perfectly regarding McMansions. These celebrities have many of these which they spend little time in while preaching to the cult ignoring their own sins against Mother Nature. I stand by my point that they are hypocrites especially Al Gore. He may be your savior but he is not mine…

If the hypocrites are right, you should listen to them anyway.

Sorry but I have to ask:
Are you retarded?
Seriously, no flaming or general insult intended, but your statement is devoid of any reason whatsoever.

DiCaprio has spent alot of time that his peers spend partying to bring an important message, a message that requires a voice that people might listen to.

He invested his own money into the risky business of formula e instead of a safer bet like ice racing. And he risks his future earnings and status by openly campaigning for something very unpopular.

And to do that, he has to travel.
If he, and others like Al Gore and Elon Musk, convince only a small percentage of people to reduce their carbon footprint by only a small percentage, it would outweigh his by at least two orders of magnitude which, in case it is not clear to you, is an improvement.

You should really try to use logic and reason sometime. Your brain will not overheat and your life will not end.

+1

This!! Well said David.

Oh dear as someone that clearly is “retarded” I have a hard time understanding, you got me… I cannot understand nor use basic logic. Logic such as flying commercial airlines that are far more efficient instead of burning all that CO2 (15 times that of commercial) flying by himself collecting awards, partying with his model of the week, etc… So he invested in a racing team, this should elevate him to sainthood?.?. I suppose you will claim he will donate all profits to little sisters of the poor. You can put all the words in my mouth you want but it is hard to take one seriously that is advocating one thing in public and doing another in private. How about the homes all over the world! That is devoid of any logic? Why does he need to own so many and use so little? He owns 2 homes in L.A. alone. How can you possibly defend that from a climate change perspective. Partying? Seriously? Do you know anything about him and his “posse”? He makes Hugh Hefner and Warren Beatty in their day look like the pope! So your logic is as long as someone may change another’s habit… Read more »

Well, if you respect Ed, then you answered my question as to whether you are retarded with a no.
But not recognizing the efforts of a long time environmentalist because he also enjoys his wealth is not reasonable, especially since he obviously has nothing personally to gain from it that he could not achieve easier another way.

Each one of us uses more than we need because we have the means to. Few use alot less than is usual in our social circle.

I do not understand why people bitch about these celebrities using their own planes – I would, simply because I would want left alone for a change. I can’t imagine the 24/7 public scrutiny these people are under (political, movie stars, whatever). You’d be mobbed by people all the time, not all of which in adoration.

The houses are overkill, obviously. I get that.

he is much better than the others……..!!!!(me and you incl.)

So the fact that he’s a hypocrite gives everyone a free pass to do nothing about what he’s advocating for?

I would take a hypocrite over nothing anyday because at least the hypocrite is doing something to make people aware of the problems.

And who cares what he does, it’s what YOU do that counts.

abc123 said:

“So the fact that he’s a hypocrite gives everyone a free pass to do nothing about what he’s advocating for?”

Thank you, abc123!

Finally, someone points out the hypocrisy of obsessing about the hypocrisy of rich “green” advocates. Those complaining about Leonard DiCaprio don’t really care about hypocrisy; they just point to conspicuous consumption by others as an excuse for doing nothing themselves.

Popular media is the wrong place to get info on climate change. They sensationalize things to the point of being ridiculous to sell their crap. Disaster scenarios in 2016 has been predicted by popular media, yet non of that came true. It might be ok as a work of fiction, but nothing to get serious about.

Huh? What conspiracy web site did you get that bull? That’s some entertaining, non-science stuff there? Really. Which one. I need a laugh.

The science community is telling us we are BLOWING way past the 2 degree Centigrade temperature goal and going to 4 degree.

2015 was Hottest Year on record.
2016 is going to Top that.

Florida cities are flooding now, during high tide, with no storms.

This is a Global Emergency equal to World War II.
This is Our World War, and that’s not exaggerating this in any way. This will cost the global 44 Trillion Dollars.

You know at some point you’ve got to wake up and govern to Reality, and look around, those telling you that the problem doesn’t exist, or is a Chinese hoax, cannot be trusted on Any Policy Position, if they can’t get This Position right.

As an oceanfront resident of Florida, I would love to know what cities you are referring to… stop with the sensationalist claims. We get your point chicken little the sky is falling!

That city would be Miami Beach, watch the segment of the video starting at around 19:45 to hear the Mayor of said city explaining how they are having to spend $400 million on raising roads and water pumps to prevent flooding that has already started.

I do not believe everything just because it was said in a video… I have no agenda to push unlike the mayor of Miami. I guess I will have to bring a canoe on my next high tide commute to South Beach… this is news to all of us in south Florida. We keep being told about it but the reality is far different.

@mx, much of what you write is non science BS. Life goes on as it has been since 2000’s when Al Gore made dire predictions about 2016. All those gloom and doom in popular media are for selling fear, and you’re buying them, hook, line, and sinker.

But I understand. Life is boring for most people, and fear is just the thing to spice it up, even if it’s just in your mind.

But life is pretty exciting with SparkEV, and I suspect for those with P100DL as well. It’s all the more reason why we need better EV in the world.

my my Sparky’s a skeptic. Who woulda thunk.

I am in complete agreement with climate science that climate change is occurring and that much of it is due to man made sources. Nothing skeptical about that.

I deny that climate change will likely lead to disasters for everyone on the planet. I further deny that climate change will have significant ill effects for those living in wealthy countries.

Umm, I guess I deny a lot of stuff.

What exact qualifications do you have that you are better able to understand the implications of climate change than the people who are studying it?

What qualification do climate scientists have to make on gloom and doom predicting 100 years down the line? Human beings are far more complex, and climate science has nothing to do with, yet the alarmist trust climate science to make completely unrelated predictions of gloom and doom.

My qualification is looking at all past predictions of gloom and doom hysteria failed to pass, including the ones by scientists of the day. The fact that the world is more prosperous than past despite far larger population and dangerous weapons is what qualifies all of us to be skeptical of gloom and doom.

Please don’t perpetuate ignorance.

In case you missed it, “I am in complete agreement with climate science that climate change is occurring and that much of it is due to man made sources.” There’s no disagreement on science.

What I disagree is nebulous claim of “sky is falling” as if that’s certainty. What qualifications do they have to predict human conditions 100 years down the line when no one’s been able to do so in the past? Unless they majored as Oracle of Delphi, climate scientists have zero qualifications to claim disasters. And we know Oracle of Delphi were spitting horse manure.

Given the fact that half the world’s population (3.5 Billion people) live within 97 miles of an ocean coastline, it’s very critical, and no sensationalism necessary. That doesn’t even include estruaries, where tidal flooding reaches far inland (like in DC along the Potomac, which feeds into the Chesapeake Bay). With average ocean level rise of only 1 meter in the next 80 years, you’re looking at almost 2 Billion people needing to relocate inland. Many of which are in poor, equatorial nations. And, it’s supposed to rise by twice that much in 80 years under current conditions. That means more like a total of 3 Billion people being displaced within 1 lifetime. Look at the reaction of nations from a few million war refugees from the Middle East! Race riots in France, and the UK left the EU because of refugee quotas. Multiply that mass exodus by about 400, and you’ll have the population displacement that will occur! There are damn good reasons why the military and intelligence communities are keeping a close eye on this. It’s a genuine, global, geopolitical crisis with a scope even greater than WWII. And here at home – say goodbye to NYC, downtown Boston,… Read more »

This is also a great video to help wrap everyone’s heads around why something should be done, from a risk/cost perspective. Even if you’re against the idea of climate change, its a worthwhile short vid:

Science is never finished, and it’s great that this video bring it up. Climate change alarmist religion all too often bring up “science is settled” argument as if it’s some proclamation from their sacred cow uttered by their version of Moses. I often see religious nuts screaming “repent or die”, and climate change gloom and doom is no different. Climate is changing and most likely due to man made causes, but gloom and doom is far, far from certain. As for number stuff that will destroy humanity, asteroid impact is far worse in that it could kill all life on earth, not merely affect humans in poor countries. I don’t see such hysteria in funding asteroid impact avoidance. If you had to spend money of “what-if” disaster, asteroid impact should be far higher on the list than climate change. Simple fact is, people don’t take action for even stuff they know to lead to disaster. We all heard of half the marriages lead to divorce (or more like 40%), yet most people get married and most of them do not have pre-nup, never mind any kind of insurance policy in case of divorce. If we’re all “logical” (say it in… Read more »

You make some good points about human nature. We’re way more reactive than proactive, that’s why the vast majority of folks live in the now and leverage themselves into a permanent financial hole with their spending. Globally, we’re the same. Unfortunately, the global climate issue is steeped in politics, money, and agendas, so getting the truth is next to impossible.

Sadly, I’ve had this discussion about alternative energy and EV’s with naysayers, and it all comes back to the politics. We can’t simply be good stewards of this world without an opposite someone getting angry about “shoving it in their face,” when simple, more efficient cars and energy sources are better and cleaner for everyone- all climate politics aside.

“Unfortunately, the global climate issue is steeped in politics, money, and agendas, so getting the truth is next to impossible.”

Yes and no. The scientific process is designed to remove issues of human bias. Of course it isn’t perfect and evidence evolves but if there were legitimate scientific flaws in the basic science of climate change do you really believe that the fossil fuel industry wouldn’t be pursuing them and presenting credible evidence instead of funding shady “institutes” and “think tanks” to try to confuse the issue?

Science cannot be devoid of politics and economics no matter how strongly the scientist strive to make it so. We are all human, but you’re making scientists to be Vulcans.

Incidentally, would Vulcans get married if they knew 40% end in divorce? I doubt it. True Vulcan would’ve had her husband killed by his friend rather than go through with the marriage. In contrast, most scientists are married.

That’s a very good point and a strong response to naysayers (which are legion, unfortunately).

NASA does have an office to coordinate astroid detection and defence:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4816

Relative to coverage of climate change doom and gloom, that is practically nothing. There are many more stuff that are more pressing than climate change (ie, clean water and toilets), but those things are not so “sexy” to talk about, and that is my point.

According to NASA: “In fact, as best as we can tell, no large object is likely to strike the Earth any time in the next several hundred years”

I believe your risk analysis is incorrect in this case, the odds of catastrophic climate change occurring in the face of inaction is virtually 100%, the odds of a catastrophic asteroid impact are relatively small.

So while you are correct that humans are generally relatively poor at risk analysis, in this case action on climate change makes eminent sense, as does devoting some effort to asteroid tracking, which is already being done.

I agree Linsay!

The astroid that hit Russia in 2012. I was on a ship at 3.00AM in the morning and saw a giant chunk of space rock explode the day before it happened.

If that giant space rock would have hit Russia in the 1960’s there is a extreamly high chance it would have started a nuclear war.

Actually, chances of climate change gloom and doom is not 100%. Something will happen is 100%, but that isn’t gloom and doom that people make it out to be. I read anywhere from 0% to 25% chance, but I don’t believe any of them; it’s simply impossible to know what will happen 100 years from now given the pace of technological progress.

If you asked people in 1900, they’ll say we’d all be drowning in horse poop by year 2000, because that’s what was being produced in HUGE quantities in cities back then. Science of horse manure production is sound, gloom and doom in year 2000 from 1900 point of view isn’t. And that’s what climate change gloom and doom is; horse manure (substitute word starting with S that is slang for manure) while climate science is sound.

In all the gloom and doom talk, there’s hardly any discussion of any potential good from climate change. Yes, bad things could/will happen, but so will some good things, at least short term and maybe even long term, but practically no reporting on the good? Seems to me like brainwashing propaganda than science.

It really ends up depending on your point of view. There will be changes, which will result in winners and losers.

People in low lying areas are likely to be losers if they are displaced when their land floods and loses value. And lots of people around the world live in low lying areas. Some locations may become more habitable leading to farming or other new opportunities that enhance value and create winners.

Life will go on, but it’s a bummer for the many who would be in the lose column. That qualifies as gloomy. Besides, most people would just as soon leave the world the way it is to avoid the aggravation of all that unnecessary change in the first place.

It’s not only the billions of people who live in coastal areas that will lose, it’s the people who live in the places that those people will flee to. Consider the effect of a few million people leaving Syria and then think about more than a billion people looking for new homes.

Of course those people in the US military who consider climate change to be one of the biggest threats to national security due to migration and conflicts over resources are just more doom and gloom chicken little types, just like those darned scientists that have nothing more than years of intensive study to go on.

Exactly – I elaborated on those issues above in a recent reply.

If climate change disaster were to hit overnight, or even in span of a decade, migration might be an issue, although the issue is more of developed nations not willing to help out (ie human nature) than climate change. But we’re talking about 100 years time. Those who live in low lying areas have time to move, even as “illegal aliens” into better lands.

In fact, much of the predicted disaster are not climate disasters, but they are human disasters motivated by greed in developed nations’ populace. When’s the last time you hugged (metaphorically) a poor person in another country?

SparkEV made the dumbest comment I read today.
Just figure the chance of climate change is a certainty an asteroid smash an infinitely small occurring probability.
Besides not being human made and beyond any possible known defense.
Nobody can stop volcanoes either.
What’s the point?
Here’s another scientific fact Sparky, “The most probable cause of all death is birth.”

Of course, knowing that doesn’t help.

But there is 100% chance that human made climate change is more stubborn than you, but not much.

If you think we can do something about climate change, that’s just delusional. As you drive to work, look around you and see how many people drive around in giant SUV all alone. Those only contribute maybe 15% of total green house gas emissions, and there are far, far more stuff that will make life miserable for everyone. If they’re unwilling to get off their SUV for smaller car (even gasser, never mind EV), they certainly won’t accept far bigger changes that will be needed for meaningful reduction.

So either disaster won’t happen (ie, revolution in tech, like automobiles did for horse manure), or disaster will happen for certainty (unlikely in developed countries). Either way, why worry? Enjoy your EV instead of “sacrificing” yourself for something that you can do nothing about. If you don’t worry about asteroids, you shouldn’t worry about climate change disaster, either.

So, your point is to stop trying to make things better and let everything fall as it may? That’s a cop out that I wouldn’t expect a driver of an EV to take.

Interestingly, in your previous comments over my time browsing the comments section of articles on this site, I’ve been impressed. Sadly, I have to say that this has all changed after reading your comments here and I believe you may be misguided in your belief on the issue.

I’m making an argument if you assume changing people’s behavior is the only option (which isn’t the case), and how hard it is to convince 7 billion people to live like it’s 1777. If you can’t have them give up SUV for a smaller car, there’s really no hope in going that route.

Luckily, living like it’s 1777 isn’t the least bit necessary. Trading in your Chevy Equinox for a Model Y and living in a net-zero energy home wouldn’t require any changes to fundamental human nature.

@Clarkson
That one doesn’t work on skeptics either. None of them do. They’ve made up their mind and that’s it.

One could say the same about people who made up their mind about gloom and doom. The fact that life goes on normally in 2016 despite media hysteria 10 years ago that things will get so bad from climate change that will cause milk to cost $12/gal doesn’t sway people from thinking that maybe things aren’t / won’t be so bad.

How about you provide some of the doom and gloom predictions of disaster by 2016 made by creditable SCIENTISTS.

Yeah, this guy has been drawing his tic-tac-toe boards for a few years now. He completely leaves out the personalities involved that have an axe to grind – which I personally rarely mention since you should be able to discuss an issue on its merits. But the fact remains there are plenty who benefit financially by fear tactics, and its interesting to see that they are have big oil company investments. Al Gore with Oxydental Petroleum. Marice Strong with DOME Oil. (deceased – but Gore’s mentor) George “Save the Planet” Soros who currently is the largest owner of coal in the world – conveniently purchasing much at discount prices right after companies have gone bankrupt when Carbon Taxes are introduced. The second BIG mistake by omission this dude makes is, his ‘precautionary, fearful approach’ is hindering development on the African Continent – in effect forcing people to live in the 1600’s perpetually – with horrendously short live spans. Now, Solar, Wind, Flywheel, and Battery technologies will eventually provide large amounts of electricity and thermal energy at lower costs, but that time is far in the future. By telling the typical African : Don’t touch your oil, don’t touch your coal… Read more »

This movie won’t sway those that are not convinced. I’ve given up trying to discuss it with folks.

The only thing that will get people to be convinced will be another 5 deg or so of warming and a total melting of the glacial ice. Of course by then it will be too late to do anything about it. Oh well.

Back when the dinosaurs roamed the planet, the average ocean temperature was hovering 40 degrees C (like a giant hot-tub), yet life thrived. It’s not the absolute temperature that matter, but the rate of change in temperature as Clarkson Cote linked videos discusses. But even then, it’s not clear if humans cannot adapt; I suspect we can by 2100.

Now you are just making up numbers, average global temperatures never reached even close to 40 degrees Celsius in the last 500 million years.

This is why I think climate change alarmist are more about religion than science.

“During the mid-Cretaceous period, some 90 to 120 million years ago, the seawater around the equator had a temperature of 30 to 37 degrees Celsius,”

Even if I provide you the evidence, the religious will not believe. If you really have an open mind, read about what the science has to say about pre-history and what 1980’s scientists had to say about 2016. No amount of me providing “sources” will convince you.

The steady-state temperature is irrelevant. It is the RATE at which the CHANGE takes place! It is too fast for we humans to adjust without widespread famine and wars, and it is too fast for crops, pollinating insects and food webs to keep up.

Sad but true in a world where people continualy want bigger houses and bigger boats aka SUVs…

Not today and not tomorrow but some time in the future does not mean anything to people who cannot see past yeaterday…
By 2100 in not much sooner it will affect people and it will be 100 % doom and gloom for small low level island populations as the ice will melt and the water will rise and people will have to abandon their nations their comunites and way of life to go live in a world they dont necisarlily like or want anything to do with…
That is just one small thing that will happen and I hope you people are not coffe drinkers…

The things I agreed with in this program were the palm oil and the tar sands.

But in terms of the ice caps melting I don’t care there is simply not enough ice to flood the world.

This is the flooding event we have to look out for

Evacuate Earth: Flooded Earth by f100001606780760

This could happen if a cloud of space ice were to come out of the other solar system and circle the earth. For the record people waterworlds outnumber land worlds.

It’s not so much the rising water to worry about (though it would displace millions of people and our most populated cities).

It’s the fact that the ice is responsible for a huge amount of energy reflection away from the earth. As ice decreases, heating only increases. It’s a bit of a vicious cycle.

It’s exactly a vicious cycle, and once it gets set in motion it will take many millenia for it to stop and reverse itself.

Sparky, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

We should be devoting WWII types of attention and commitment to reversing the damage we’ve done, if it isn’t already too late.

I find it kind of sad that you don’t feel the need to care about the 350 million people who live at an elevation of less that 5m above sea level.

I personally don’t think we should encourage people to live wive in ten feet of sea level. The ocean being what it is rarely stays at sea level.

I’m working on a book idea of my own about alien fish called Brim raising sea levels on earth to take it over. The main idea is that the Brim do more social damage to humans fighting one another over running to higher ground then humans getting attacked by aliens.

This is the type of damage we would see at a sea level rise of 200 feet. But the Brim book has sea level rising to 600 feet.

What is odd is Syria and Iran is a lot higher up above sea level then Europe. So in a ironic twist the Europeans end up running into Syria. But in the book the Middle East a mega war to end all wars gets started after the rising global ocean floods the Nile River and half of Iraq. The ocean also causes trouble when it spills though into the Caspian Sea causing that inland sea to grow by a factor of four.

Lindsay Patten said:

“I find it kind of sad that you don’t feel the need to care about the 350 million people who live at an elevation of less that 5m above sea level.”

Sadly, this is a perfect example of the illogic of global warming alarmism.

Major seaports are large population centers. Regardless of how far the seas rise or fall, lots of people will continue to live within 5 meters of sea level, because they will migrate to higher or lower levels as the seas rise or fall. It’s not like hundreds of millions of people will have their feet nailed in place and drown as the seas rise at the not-exactly-rapid rate of about 2-3 mm per year!

The human species has achieved world dominance by being highly adaptable and inventing technologies which allow our species to live in virtually all climates on earth. The idea that we can’t adapt to a bit of sea level rise, and a very few degrees of global warming, is ignoring the reality of our species’ history very firmly indeed!

It’s not just the volume of water released by melting ice, but the fact that the water warms and expands along with the rest of the ocean. And, it has been shown that entire continents tilt in reaction to the loss of permanent ice caps. The sea level rise in the US is exacerbated by Canada rising and the lower 48 falling, like a giant see-saw.

And, we aren’t yet sure how the (geologically) fast dump of freshwater into the ocean will affect the saline cycle in the ocean. If the global ocean currents that regulate our climate are disrupted to the point that one or more legs basically shuts down or re-routes, that could make an even bigger difference. Don’t know yet, for sure. That sort of thing doesn’t show up in fossil records and drill cores directly.

The Four Horse Men are saddled their steeds chomping at their bits.

LOL in a very sad way about the “conservative” comments here.

I guess ignorance is bliss to these “conservatives” and it also explains how somebody as big an ahole like Trump will actually get about 40% of all American voters to vote for him!

Politics need not be generalized. I’m a conservative. But I believe in climate change. And I drive an EV. And I have solar panels. Maybe that makes me not a conservative in those respects. But I am very conservative in respecting the right to life. Anyways, I digress…

The point beling, believe it or not, not all people believe party-line doctrines, but can instead (gasp) think for themselves and keep an open mind.

Refreshing welcome then!

But still don’t understand how Trump is in any way conservative and view as one.

Well, you also fly a plane, which uses plenty of gasoline and kerosene not to mention all the hours flying required to get certified. But you do have phev’s and panels. My problem with this subject in general, is that people worry their heads off about Plant Food when: 1). There is only a trace amount in the atmosphere. 1a). CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas, its effect being logarithmic in concentration (100 times is 2x as bad, 1000 times is 3x as bad, etc) – meanwhile water vapor – the most important greenhouse gas is ignored (over 91% in ‘efficacy’ ), and I don’t hear anyone coming up with a plan to drain the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. 2). 85% of Volcanos are under the oceans, which besides heating them, also provide millions of tons of CO2 annually which everyone conveniently forgets and ignores. 3). Earthquakes which release plenty of trapped CO2. – Another reason to be against horizontal hydrofracking. 4). The big one for me, is I see streams of Barium, Strontium, and Aluminum coming out of mostly drone planes at least 4 days a week where I live, that cover the sky with a milky goo… Read more »

Bill, I’m only going to address one point in your post, the issue of water vapor versus CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by the fact that it saturates and precipitates, adding additional water vapor will only cause additional precipitation. CO2 doesn’t have an equivalent limit. Consider Venus which has such high concentrations of CO2 that surface temperatures are over 460 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt lead.

Hey Bill, if you’re interested in exploring the chem-trail idea further, this is a journal that may be worth reading: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta;jsessionid=81C700692BB4F708F0E3F79B15942753.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

I have a couple friends who are atmospheric scientists, and they too conclude that condensation from modern jets is absolutely possible under many atmospheric conditions. So, at the very least, I know that seeing a trail does not imply some chemical being tossed out of a plane.

The journal takes that a bit further to conclude that no mass conspiracy exists here. It’s worth a read!

No I’m sorry Eric that is total nonsense. There is no serious dispute about what is being released from these drones. See Geoengineeringwatch.org for more information.

Chemtrails is not the proper term and is instantly shot down. Use of the proper Geoengineering or Solar Radiation Management will get you to the official information.

Thanks Bill, I’ll have to look at that.

You should read the “Scientific Explanation” of the Third “Magic Bullet”,(from the JFK Warren Report – commissioned including Alan Dullas who was fired by JFK) which went through bones and flesh, then made a 90 degree turn, then held seemingly in mid-air stationary for 1.2 seconds , then hit Kennedy, and then fell out of Kennedy’s body in brand-new pristine shape onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

The point is, anyone who looks at these things can see them turning the sprays on and off at a regular basis, and the sprays don’t originate anywhere near the engines which just to happen to keep the plane in the air.

Actually this is Scientific Heresay much worse than Blood-Letting, in that BL is still used rarely today but not so much to give a loss of blood pressure. But this crap the ‘scientists’ are spewing doesn’t even to begin to float for anyone other than Mr. McGoo. All one has to do is bother to look.

Linday Patten:

CO2 also has a regulating mechanism:

The most obvious one is that plants will use more CO2 if it is available, since a good chunk of time they are starved for it.

The proof: Greenhouses wouldn’t intentionally pump extra in if there were too much of it to begin with.

“The most obvious one is that plants will use more CO2 if it is available, since a good chunk of time they are starved for it.”

Up to a point. The amount of CO2 correlates to amount of pore sizes that plants have. It has been shown thru fossil records on plants millions years ago had smaller pore sizes due to higher concentration of CO2 in the air in the distant past.

The problem is that plants will like it but it won’t have the time to adjust to the severe floods or drought that result from the excessive CO2 today.

Can some of the people find ways to adopt to the new “norm”? Probably.

Can 7 Billions people on the planet adopt it? No.

MMF: The same starved plant responds immediately to adequate CO2. If it didn’t Greenhouses would not pump it in.

Drought and Flooding in general fall under Weather Modification programs, now 70 years old, so the technique is rather well refined at this point. Its a related point but I’ll skip it here for the time-being.

The techniques are rather complex and it would take much too long to get into it here, on a single response.

But your supposition I don’t agree with, that CO2 is a significant atmospheric modifier, or, that CO2 percentages may be greatly changed merely by driving a different type of car. I listed several natural phenomena that Big Gov’t types may want to legislate against, but I haven’t seen many earthquakes, volcanos (including the majority under oceans), or even radioactive decay, or decomposing plant and animal life responding in a timely manner to a subpoena.

The average level of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is two orders of magnitude less than human emissions. Prior to the industrial revolution the natural carbon cycle was able to absorb all the CO2 emitted from volcanoes.

Occassionally when they erupt, it is not a 1/100th miniscule amount, but this is a very minor issue. The main point is that by far the most efficacious ghg is WATER. Why don’t you guys ban that? When I was a kid I read an article in Scientific American, where some self-important PhD was claiming there could never be mass adoption of electric cars, since there would never be enough copper to be able to make the car jack to get the current to fast charge the car. He could only think of a huge copper block being charged at a low voltage, at over a thousands amps. Then he went all around with various permutations PROVING his point beyond a shadow of a doubt, when the whole article was based on a few silly assumptions which certainly no one on SA’s editorial board bothered to challenge. Its rather like that ‘Iranian Scientist’ who came up with a revolutionary Isentropic compression heat pump, but unfortunately, since he could not CLEARLY state why it was more efficient he admitted he’s been thrown out on his ear by several companies. This is rather like that. A few silly assumptions made, like for… Read more »

Bill, this has been studied and while plants have increased the amount of CO2 they absorb it is not nearly enough to offset human emissions.

Merely the fact that there have been times when CO2 levels, and temperatures, were higher, shows that plants are not able to place an upper limit on CO2 levels the way that saturation and precipitation of water vapor limits the concentration of water vapor.

Yeah, well, call me when the CO2 level gets 10x or 100x more than it is now.

You can tell when that is because then plants in general won’t be starved for CO2 and there won’t be any necessity to administer it to the vegetable ‘starving patient’.

Yes, I do fly a plane. The good news is, I don’t use terribly more fuel flying to NH than I would driving. 375 miles of driving versus 200 nmi of flying helps a bit.

Though it still definitely uses more fuel to fly, the 5.5 hours saved is worth it for me. 😉

Cannot believe you posted such a trashy video. All the relevant science is pointing away from CO2 as a significant factor in warming. DiCaprio and his sort are simly alarmist stooges trying to feel relevant.
Warming is good,
More CO2 is good.
EVs are good because they compete with gas!

Watched the video. It is great!

We should do something about it.

Whether we get our wish today or not, we should do everything we can.

Now, go out to Vote and make sure the coal supporter Trump don’t win!!!!!

Or since Hillary’s friend George Soros is the biggest coal owner in the world currently, you could vote against her to make her friend mad.

So, you would have to go to her Friend’s financial link to bash her?

I guess that is clearly different from Trump who openly coming out to want to bring coal back.

Do you see the difference between the two claims?

I don’t want to get political here. But Bill, seriously, I expected more from you and never thought you would have lowered yourself to Trump supporter level. Hillary is no angel, but she is certainly better than Trump.

I don’t want to make this into a political debate. But from a simple straight up front admission, Hillary plan to bring more green power and Trump is going to bring more dirty power out and eliminate 75% of government regulation including EPA. That isn’t acceptable to me.

Noted…

So to all saying climate change is not a big deal, why does our military say it is our biggest threat, even bigger than terrorism?

Yup, the same guys who recently secretly caught Osama bin Laden, then threw him overboard, without producing a single ‘selfie’, and then the Navy Seal Team which supposedly did the operation was, against their own regulations, put on a single helicopter which crashed, killing them all.

OBL actually died in 2001, of Renal failure – he being on dialysis for some time.

Whenever Bush was is trouble with his popularity, there would be a new ‘video’ from CIA central casting, with various OBL’s varying in weight by over 100 pounds, and appearing younger and younger as time when on.

President-Elect Trump has promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ in Washington. Getting to the bottom of some of these whoppers will be part of the job.