Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker | TEDxBern

So good of you to allow comments on this video. Too many producers disable the ability to question or disagree. After all the idea of consensus on this matter is contrary to doing good science. Nothing was demystified here.

100% of the comments seem to conclude that this guy hasn't a clue.

3 years later and the IPCC finally relented and allowed to include the water vapor (clouds) in their next round of climate predictions models. It is not perfect, but a step in the correct direction.

We don’t even know what has caused the past heating and cooling cycles but we know what’s causing this one? Speculation and/or correlation are not causation. The reality is we don’t know ...and I don’t understand why some scientists refuse to admit this.

As a physicist myself I understand how this guy loves to think everything can be simplified. But also as a physician who works with outrageously complicated systems of the human organism it is obvious to me that he really doesn't comprehend how complex the climate truly is. He also doesn't include how human bias is rampant when studying very complex systems. Scientists often find what they want to find in these complex systems because of their natural bias. Medical studies are notoriously false because of natural bias.

Oh dear, just a researcher that has researched the view he is looking for. This is not from a scientist and is missing huge parts of the climate jigsaw. And showing graphs of skewed data, .... it just goes on.

I like the discussion at 14:00 about “complex” systems. However, I would like to propose the problem of measuring the average global temperature is a little bit more complicated than a boiling pot of water. A better example is another system everyone encounters regularly: a microphone, an electrical amplifier and a speaker. This system amply demonstrates the concepts of positive & negative feedback which are critical to understanding the climate change science. Those who think they can predict future global temperatures based on flawed global climate models are like inexperienced sound engineers who aim the speaker at the microphone. Positive feedback causes the system to runaway into a high-pitched squeal! Negative feedback causes forcing to be damped, and the sound system can recover quickly from loud sounds. Negative feedback is used in many electronic circuits to create stability, and prevent extreme reaction to variable inputs. This is like the real climate system, which holds a planetary temperature within a few degrees C over hundreds of years. The “standard deviation” on mean annual global temperature has been about 0.1%. If no forcing at all existed, then we could still expect temperature anomalies to range from -0.5 to +1.2C. That’s three standard deviations on 286K, the approximate mean temperature of earth over the past 200 years.

Very selective choice of information and graphs used. Never heard any media give anything other than a pro climate change propergangda.

If you have a different opinon of climatechange you can not even be part of IPCC. This shows how scientific the IPCC really is.

Predicting a complex system 50 years into the future seems to me at least quite difficult, no matter what this guy says. And when it comes to climate change, I would say that as soon as some of the past predictions would be even close to what they predicted I could start to believe in this. So far they never got it right. Every time they have radically over estimated the human-effect and warming. Recently the IPCC also change their latest predictions to a less catastrophic direction. This was, of course, done in silence...

Where did he get the numbers? I cannot find anything that says we added 330 molecules per million of CO2 in 250 years. Everything I see shows CO2 was actually higher 250 years ago. I would like to see this data.

Stocker presents the traditional view that 'greenhouse effect' will cause a disproportionate rise in the earth's temperature. Yet new research suggests atmospheric pressure, rather than CO2, maybe the mechanism on Venus rather than any 'run-away' greenhouse effect. More research is needed into this before coming to definite conclusions.

Reading this comment section makes me want to cry. I am simply baffled.

CO2 below 150 ppm would mean the end of life on earth (plant starvation), Even at the levels we see today, around 400 ppm, plants are still starved of CO. How you can come up with the idea that the current level of CO2 could in any way be a threat is mind boggling. We come from a very cold period. In the 1800s people starved because of poor harvests. We have had one degree of warming since then. Not because of CO2, but still a good thing. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Now, if you ever can observe and quantify the necessary feedback effects between CO and water vapour to cause significant heating, get back with us. Noone ever has. Chances are noone ever will. And there is no linear relationship between ppm CO2 and global temperature.

When's the ice age we were warned about in the 70s going to hit?? Asking for a friend.

Yes, of course! Predicting (and measuring) the temperature in a boiling pot of water is just like predicting the temperature for the entire planet.

He lied, carbon was 4000ppm in the past

Really like that fact that the intro music is significantly louder than the speaker voice. Not only this video, but for the most of TED talks..

I deeply care about this issue but I just wasted nearly 20 minutes of my time. No relevant science exists here.

This guy apparently is an expert on lies, so we need to listen to him. He uses typical alarmist misdirects. He shows only the corrupted surface temperature record, replete with homogenization, infilling, and uni-directional adjustments. Does not mention the satellite temperature record that clearly shows "the pause" in the last 20 years. Does not mention that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Uses relative CO2 concentrations (not absolute values) to typify CO2 levels as "high". News flash: 400ppm is only 0.04%. In what world is this a "major" macroscopic driver? Nobody I know contends that the earth hasn't warmed in the last century (about 1C). What "deniers" suggest is that natural climatic cycles are significant and not zero, as he and others assume. Full disclosure, this guy was a co-chair of IPCC working group #1. The UN is pushing global governance, wealth redistribution, and socialism, and energy policy is the best tool to accomplish all.