literally

yes I tried to make it 0.75x hhahaha

@@raychen8247 same it was so fast

It sounds also auto tuned. Very hard to listen to. But I love Xiaxue. Why she had to do that?!

OMG YES

Human-based greenhouse gases cause global warming: www.climatelevels.org "Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/#fig-2-1 The total CO2 released from coal, oil & gas over the last 30 years, is greater than the rest of all human history.ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute

Natural factors that change the climate over millions of years include: changes in the Earth's orbit, the movement of continents & extremely slow changes in the Sun's output. Do not try to equate slow natural changes, with human-caused changes happening over decades.

Please for God sake stop talking about thing that you have no clue about it! You pointed that there is so much false explanation of this topic so why are you just spreading the same thing!

@@klokoloko2114 ...are you capable of thought? Check out Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, there are definitive answers: global warming is a hoax

@@garysarela4431 You haven't done any of your own research, you're repeating one narrative and I guarantee you, you have no idea who Patrick Moore is, because everything he does debunks what you say, his Twitter has tons of information, so you can look at the studies yourself and see. Stop being so ignorant m

ikr she handles hate so well

I agree!

She’s not queen of amazing opinions. She just has an opinion.

Haha Amazing opinions. Is there such a thing as amazing opinions? Maybe easily swayed followers. Haha

Sure because a stranger knows a stranger over the Internet

Lynne Loh lmao she’s transphobic, fatphobic, and calls ppl slurs, on top of calling ppl ugly and gross “Amazing opinions” lmao

true, charts are mixed up, but that still doesn't present a correlation. In fact it then shows that for changing temperatures CO2 was very low once. CO2 was pretty much constant when saying that the fluctuation is about 5 ppm max. which leads to around (i'll just take a lowest value of 260 ppm for this, 5ppm divided by 260ppm multiplied by 100%) 2% fluctuation of CO2 which is pretty much nothing compared to the 12% (take ~-32.5°C-(-28.5°) = -4°C divided by -32.5°C multiplied by 100%) rise in temperature at around 8000 on the x-axis. By just saying 'but it was low before!!!' you are giving wrong input to people that don't know how to analyse charts. Next time say the charts are mixed, which is true, but just leave that last sentence out.

@@mawariyux8236 and Xiaxue, the chart does not match what you are talking about. They are the temperatures in one place on the globe, not global temperatures. The temperatures in Greenland (the chart you showed) would be especially sensitive to changes in the ocean currents. See also www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

@Metal Monkey failed English The climate is always changing, what are you talking about?

AbraKadabra right on! The earth being round and more than 2000 years old is too 🤡

We will have global electricity network like internet today so then we can send one to another clean solar and wind energy, no need for big storage. When is day in EU electricity is going in US and vice versa. HVDC cables on ocean floor can connect continents with less than 5% looses! China have today HVDC 1200 000V 12GW link in their country 2000miles long! Nuclear power is OK but general public do not accept that source of energy very well and also it's not renewable, you have to mine uranium that is finite source, also nuclear waste is problem that nobody want to have in their backyard. Nuclear weapon associated with nuclear power is also potential threat! But as I said nuclear power is good source!

@ToldYouSo Tell me how did you let that your comment is dependent on American company You Tube !

I think I read this somewhere (correct me if wrong) but aren’t oil companies also the ones spending the most to find a solution vs all the other companies? Bc they know their business cannot last against future regulations and they must find an environmentally healthy solution

Where do you think the non recyclable plastics or the plastic that basically is not recicled ends up and the governments don't want you to know ?

@@almu167 in the ocean! Indeed guys...it's a misconception that plastics in the ocean come only from direct littering. Unfortunaly, that is only partly true. most of it is the non recyclable ones individuals/big producers toss in OUR trash, it then ends up in landfill (if not incinerated) and with factors like wind, end up in the ocean. I am a master student in environment and sustainability...a good solution is to combine individual/group effort and governmental effort . Try to reduce the waste, don't buy plastic packaged things when there is a plastic free option :) peace, hating on climate change activists is not a good move now..humans have already fucked up their environment to an almost irreversible point. No time to fight each other, we gotta unite and protect mother nature for our own survival! Let's think of innovative ways to reduce waste, unnecessary overconsumption and the use of fossil fuels. If each one of us cared and made individual effort, it would be an incentive to governments and big companies efforts. It's actually starting to happen little by little, and everyday I see a person, a shop, a company making efforts , or a new environmental measure taken, I feel true happiness !

Well, the straws actually often slip though when going though the sorting/rinsing process, even though it got disposed of correctly. And the shape of them make it easy for them to en up in turtles.

I just reuse and wash my plastic bubble tea straws and don't use straws for drinks that don't need them, metal straws cause more strain on the environment so i don't use them, paper straws get mushy after one use. There always a chance that when someone is disposing of the garbage that I thrown, the straw would fly out and become litter, so doing a little deed like this can prevent me from killing one turtle for no reason, and that's good enough.

no, have you heard of flotsam and jetsam? trash is being dumped into the oceans too. not just on the beaches. please be more educated on these matters before spewing crap like this idiot wendy.

Actually that is incorrect. I worked for the largest energy company for 40 years, look at the Altamont wind farm, the Sierra club fights like crazy about these things, the problems is not how many birds they kill, rather the kinds they kill. The big ones. And if you think that is bad look at the huge solar plant (not solar panels ) in California when the birds (any) fly into the mirror path they are known as "streamers" they burst into flame.

I think she's intelligent too. And I don't think she means to mislead as well. However the info she provides is scientifically inaccurate and only based on Google searches. Watch this video instead. :) It's more useful and true to where the scientific communicate is at at the moment! m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

I think Xiaxue means we'll. I don't think she aims to mislead. However, the info she presents is not up to date and also misleading. Science is important in understanding what is happening - and a background helps from the people who have committed their lives to studying this - to our benefit. Please refer to this video instead for more accurate information. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

from someone who loses her personal stuff, I would be leaving my metal straw I got for free somewhere I can't find it 😂

I don't think Xiaxue means to mislead. I think she's sincere in her effort. However, the info she provides is not accurate and up to date. Please refer to this video instead. Climate change is indeed real. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

Steve Aitken I wonder if you’ve watched actual climate Scientists. Give it a try sometime. m.ukposts.info m.ukposts.info/the/i6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow.html

I think Xiaxue means we'll and I don't think she seeks to mislead. However, the info she presents is inaccurate or not up to date. Please refer to this video instead for the more consensual information. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

shooekt No essays on environment though

@@nobodydance7897 could have been used for globalisation question

A huge part of her video talked about capitalism and how companies make money from getting you to pay for comforts. Well, that is literally what they've done- found a way to capitalize on your desire for a bag. Companies don't owe you anything for free. It costs them money to buy the bags, so it makes sense they want to get their money back. That's actually one of the biggest criticism about companies trying to convince people to do things like "use less napkins" or "only take a straw if you need one", etc. They say they are doing it to cause less waste and maybe they are, but it also saves them money to not provide these things for free or to shame people into not taking as much. Great, they get to look pious all while saving money or even charging you. Personally I think it probably is a good idea for people to be less wasteful (just like I think exercising is good for you, but I don't do it anyway), but it's still funny to see complaints about not getting free stuff on a video that is promoting capitalism.

"conscious, regulated capitalism" - regulated by whom? Do you think that people who regulate industries always do so because of goodwill and altruism? Look at OPEC, which "regulates" the production of oil in its participating countries - do you think this regulation is done without an incentive in mind? Regulation always inevitably means more intervention from the government to achieve what they believe to be the best from themselves. If corporations are greedy - are politicians and people within the State not even more so?

@Boi Banana I agree with most of what you said with just one side comment - wouldn't under-regulation cause LESS monopoly instead of more? Many companies (such as the transport companies here) are monopolies simply because there simply is too much regulation that act as a barrier-to-entry for potential market participants.

@Lola " but we can also begin to benefit from conscious, regulated capitalism as well, which would help to limit the destruction of our natural resources, and thus begin to control climate change." The Earth isn't running out of resources. In fact, there is an abundance of it today more than ever: www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/simon-abundance-index-new-way-measure-availability-resources

@Boi Banana Also, Big Tech companies aren't monopolies in any traditional sense of the word the way it is used in economics 101. Their products are free (there's no hurt to consumer welfare). They operate in double sided markets where they dominate social media but not advertising. See truthonthemarket.com/2019/10/01/any-way-you-measure-it-warren-is-wrong-to-claim-facebook-and-google-account-for-70-of-all-internet-traffic/ Any regulatory attempt to break it up or regulate has been shown to likely cause more harm than good: truthonthemarket.com/symposia/should-we-break-up-big-tech-symposium/

@Gluepops It's directly relevant to his point because according to this measurement the Earth isn't running out of resources as environmentalists popularly claim. The crucial point is that natural resources are limited, but human ingenuity (aka innovation) is unlimited, and it is the latter that multiples the former. It builds directly on Julian Simon's famous thesis "The Ultimate Resource" (check out his book). Excerpt from the article: " The 2017 SAI of 479.6 suggests that our planet was 379.6 percent more abundant in resources in 2017 than it was in 1980. Put differently, resources were 4.796 times as plentiful in 2017 as they were in 1980."

Yes we should always try to limit the amount of plastics we use regardless, and also even if we properly dispose of garbage, The transportation of garbage from one place to another can cause unintentional littering and hence its better if we just limit the amount of plastics we use to begin with.

I don't think so.. If u saw her ig story, she always up to something.. Well this research must take hours or probably days

she’s actually really smart and from an elite school when she was younger !

makes me feel bad for the ISsiD bEcOz I cHinEsE girl for an unknown reason

Going to high school can do wonders :)

www.snopes.com/fact-check/nasa-climate-change-admission/

because when she sped up the video, she also set the audio to maintain her vocal pitch (which prevents the video from making her sound like a chipmunk), in doing so, the software has to forcefully pitch down her voice, which kinda makes her sound robotic and "behind a wall".

@Grabbed You By The Pussy The climate is not changing as normally as it has been in the past. The ice caps have NOT increasing in ice. They are melting at exponentially high rates and causing sea and ocean levels to rise indefinitely, in turn casuing increased flooads around the would and threatening submerging of many islands everywhere. Literally any credinle scientific journal and climate scientist will reiterate this. Can you cite where NASA said the ice caps haven't been melting? You do realize that they are a SPACE agency and have nothing to do with climate change study, right? Climates have changed in the course of history but they have never changed and flipped completely like this ever before. And it will bring disastrous consequences to human life as we know it.

@Grabbed You By The Pussy Nope. From NASA themselves: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146471/sea-ice-below-normal-despite-a-seasonal-bump , four decades of Antarctic sheet mass: Recent observations have shown that the ice sheet is losing mass along the periphery due the enhanced flow of its glaciers, at a rate that has been increasing over time, while there is no long-term trend change in snowfall accumulation" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347714/ More: www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414 nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Plus, you might want to check out skepticalscience.com which essentially debunks all of your counterarguments pretty aptly.

@Grape Jucie so how is belittling other people smart ah?

@Grape Jucie Aww thanks, I'm flattered you think I'm young, I'm 30 btw, but appreciate the compliment. Instead of throwing out generalised opinions on Xiaxue's smartness, lets have an adult discussion about why you think 'this' is not smart? Do you think that the facts she puts in the video was false? Do you feel that the research she has put in the video to back the facts that she has put up in the video lacking? Do you think that XX has only presented one side of the argument of climate change in the video? Was it biased in any way? Was the way she presented the facts, research, and her argument supporting her opinion on the topic not coherent and logical? Did you think XX did not put any thought into the situation before publicly making her opinions known? By the way, thinking. What do you think about that? I think it is so underrated and something many people should do more of before opening their mouths or typing away on their keyboards and phones.

@@janessasanio Grape Juice is probably saying that because you will find that some of it is misleading when you do your research. When someone says something in a confident tone doesn't mean that it is 100% accurate, and the references that are being cited are important. Some of the points she raises are sound but when it comes to the climate science data, it's not all accurate. This is a complex subject, and as someone who is new to the topic, I don't blame anyone for not understanding it thoroughly or communicating it in a balanced manner. I would not go so far as to say that Xiaxue is not smart, but this is an area that is complicated and not everyone is suited to talking about it without doing some deep diving. I have several friends who work on climate change issues, and know people who represent Singapore to attend COP talks, they said her scientific explanations were wrong.

@@OliviaChoong Hey Olivia, thanks for your reply. It's this types of discussion that I like to have. I agree with you that climate change is a complex subject and of course I'm not only going to take XX's word for it. I also understand that what she's putting up here is to support her opinions and views but she did it in a way that was smartly laid out. At the end of the day, I know it's her view and opinion and she's defending herself. (I do share her opinion that GT is cringey to watch but I also admire how GT has leveraged on her fame to raise the issue of climate change) My original comment is a comment on the fact that XX's haters often underestimate that XX is quite intelligent. That's it. Her past dramas has already established that and I find it amusing when XX owns them. What Grape Jiuce could have done is point out the flaws in XX's logic and facts instead (like you did) and opened up a discussion instead of, 'you think this is smart... you must be a kid'. How is that contributing to the issue of climate change? By the way, i'm curious what was the facts that were off? My take, if anyone is interested in my opinion is Big Companies have pushed the narrative of how saving the environment as the responsibility of individuals. These companies, they need to start taking responsibility of how they have contributed to the issue and start taking measures to prevent more damage from happening.

​@@janessasanio I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think Grape Juice is exasperated lol, so he/she is speaking in this manner. Thanks for elaborating, and yes I think XX is smart and this video is well structured to give herself credibility although my opinion is that some things are better left to the experts. I can see why people think Greta is cringey, it is also important to note that her response is targetted to world leaders and not us, and youths are given a platform to speak at COP events, so all the adult men should not be so triggered lol. And yes, so true about how big companies should take responsibility for the consequences. I'm going to cut and paste what I said to someone else in the comments section: For example the part about climate models - she said that scientists don't agree on one climate model - this is due to uncertainties. Here is a quote from Science News to clarify that point, "That’s because the simulations use the same equations to look at past and future climate conditions. And many simulations still struggle to re-create accurately the climate of very warm time periods in the past, such as the Eocene Epoch. As the world gets hotter, it turns out, the uncertainties start to ramp up. “Nobody is arguing about whether [the temperature increase will be] less than 2 degrees,” Gettelman says. “We’re arguing about the high end.” Skeptical Science notes that "climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence". Also her point about the correlation between temperature and CO2 and how we have had more CO2 in the past but temperatures were cooler -- It is important to note that CO2 sets the temperature and is a key factor in controlling climate but not the only factor because ocean cycles can also contribute to lowering the temperature among other factors. During the time that C02 levels were higher and temperatures were cooler, the sun was also dimmer and Skeptical Science states that "Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean." She says there is growing ice in Antarctica (this was unexplainable), actually it started melting some years back (it was reported last year that in 2017 the ice was at a record low) and overall we have ice loss globally. With more CO2 in the atmosphere, yes there is more plant growth due to carbon fertilisation, but scientists don't know how much CO2 is increasing plant growth because plants need more than just C02 to grow, excess CO2 is also making oceans more acidic which affect marine life.

Explain why you disagree?

So show us the holes?

How do you expect a middle school student to provide solutions on this massive complex problem? Not saying that young people cannot make changes but tackling climate change is far beyond the scope of her ability. From what I see, all she has accomplished is to raise further attention to the issue and by doing so, some people may be motivated by her to be more environmental conscious, which is a good thing. But she is definitely cringy... somehow she reminds me of Alex Jones 😂

Nikkita G I’m sorry, why does she need to come up with solutions? Scientists are there! But people won’t even listen to them...which is why she is saying what she is. Seriously?

@@shabbylow Exactly. I did not think there would be a possibility she would have a solution. I like her character and I wish many were that way but nothing gets done if you don't set the example through actions. I often did volunteer work the Smithsonian conservation institution and saw a lot of young middle school children involved in different conservation activities. You can search that up if you so think I lie. It's called Smithsonian Fonz education. You would be in awe at the amazing things they'd do. My point is she could start small and show the younger audience how it's done so others can follow her journey. Instead I feel she lacks in a lot of ways and to be honest while I may not like the a**hole of V. Putin, he had a proper response to the girls words which was alike to my thoughts on this topic. You should search up his response on YT. That being said I still think the speech is cringe and I hope for her progress.

Plastic bags that you find in supermarkets are usually NOT at all durable. The bag easily rips apart, which is why people throw them away.

If something costs more, it naturally means you take more resources to produce it. So.. if your metal straw costs more, you can imagine the amount of energy i.e. carbon dioxide that is put into creating it.

@@davinchee9349 but if you say, use that metal straw for 300 times, as opposed to using 300 plastic straws, it definitely less wasteful.

There's an episode of the show Broken on Netflix that talks about it.

@@MagicalKid That's hard to say, because "wasteful" is a very subjective term. Some people might find more utility for 300 plastic straws than 1 metal one. Sometimes in our evaluation of what we believe to be "wasteful", we forget that people use disposables for a reason i.e. convenience. It can be argued that convenience constitutes utility for some people.

Virulente you can slow it down in the settings

Yes

Except the info is misleading or inaccurate. Google isn't sufficient. This video is much better. And the info is more based on true and more recent scientific studies. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

How do you think people can get drugs (or develop technology) which make them more resistant to fungus? Would a weak economy provide them the ability to be more climate resistant?

@@davinchee9349 You're right, a stronger economy would enable more scientific funding, however I believe the best course of action is to mitigate problems rather than wait untill the problems arise. There is no guarantee that future climate related problems will be easy to resolve. In the case of invasive fungal infection we have to consider the time drug development takes and the possibility of resistance arising. It is possible that the longer we wait to deal with issues the more expensive they become overall.

@@KittyChubbyBunny I have to disagree. Much of humanity's success is due to innovation, not conservation. It's also noteworthy that much of man's success is also because they were able to manipulate nature to their advantage (see vaccines, concrete, elecricity etc). It's unlikely that we will predict the entirety of diseases that might befall man in the future, but it makes more sense that we don't paralyse ourselves with the possibility of risk, but rather take active steps to mitigate any problems that might arise with risk. This is true for life as well as for humanity, no? You don't keep your money in a tin can at home simply because you're afraid that banks might fail - and banks DO fail.

But you also need to consider the fact that most bin bags are bought to line bins whereas not everyone uses plastic carrier bags to line bins and many end up in the ocean which is the main problem. Not to mention the size and thickness difference, you would need around 3 normal carrier bags to carry the same amount of rubbish as one bin bag. In the UK only general waste require bin bags, food waste are disposed in biodegradable bags that are provided and recyclebles are collected in reusable boxes. So I guess your local council needs to look into that.

Stephanie Kawaidesu it is necessary, because this video contains misleading information. Also, Maunder Minimum? That will not curb global warming- it’s only a temporary respite. The CO2 we have added is still there.

Except it's actually not accurate or outdated. Watch this instead. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2931506576888975&id=592308557475467

with this thing called science

With today’s technology...

@@mattiusphern6223 that's why I said 'accurately'. This data is an estimate.

M Cynthia who says estimates can’t be accurate. And only the trend of these data matters, not the exact magnitude.

@@mattiusphern6223 estimates are accurate? 🤣 never mind. Okay you win 😄

If you do some basic research online, you'll see it isn't well rounded. Certain details are wrong or omitted and therefore lopsided, it is hard to capture everything in a short video because CC is a complex topic.

Enlightening is screaming now...

Yea so the vid won’t be an hour long

@@starfish1267 Basic math will tell you that it won't be an hour long. This video is currently 17:12. If you slow it down by 25%, it will be 21:30 only.

Diana monte It’s Singapore speed.

Just change to 0.75 speed in ur UKposts settings.

Agree

Agree to disagree.

Antarctic ice is actually growing.

HERAAN M the points arguing against human-caused climate change are nevertheless misleading.

Stwinge44 I mean this video did bring up a lot of good points for both sides and we as a community need to think about both sides for the coin not just one side. After watching this video now I understand why not a lot of people like Greta. She really is speaking from privilege and not taking account of a lot of things when she talks about this issue she clearly lacks a lot in what she brings to the table.

@@hekoma_uwu145 Just feel the need to reiterate there is hardly "both sides" when it comes to whether human-caused climate change is real. As for Greta, I think many misunderstand her - she's just calling attention to the issue (listen to the science) and it's not fair that she be blamed for so many various things.