The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth
Summary
TLDRThis video discusses 'An Inconvenient Truth,' a documentary by Al Gore that brought climate change to the forefront. Despite its impact, the film faced criticism for alleged inaccuracies and political bias. The video examines nine specific errors identified by the UK High Court and one additional significant error not addressed in the court case. It reflects on how the film's approach may have influenced the public discourse on climate change, emphasizing the importance of accurate and nuanced communication in science and politics.
Takeaways
- 🌍 'An Inconvenient Truth', released in 2006, was a groundbreaking documentary on climate change, directed by Davis Guggenheim and based on Al Gore's presentations.
- 🏆 The film was highly successful, winning two Academy Awards and contributing to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
- 📚 It was used as an educational tool in schools in England, Scotland, and Wales, sparking controversy and legal challenges over its accuracy and political nature.
- 👨⚖️ In the court case Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Justice Michael Burton ruled that the film was substantially accurate but contained nine errors.
- 🔍 The judge categorized the errors into sensationalism, attribution issues, and some that were not considered errors by the video's narrator due to evolving scientific understanding.
- ❄️ Al Gore's discussion of polar bears, sea levels, and extreme weather events was criticized for not fully representing the scientific consensus or the timing of events.
- 🌡️ The film was also critiqued for overstating the certainty of attribution science regarding specific events like Hurricane Katrina and the drying of Lake Chad.
- 🌐 The video discusses the broader implications of how 'An Inconvenient Truth' framed climate change as an individual rather than a societal issue, potentially impacting policy discourse.
- 🔗 The film's focus on Al Gore himself and its political framing are seen as having both positive and negative effects on the public's understanding and the political landscape of climate change.
- 🌱 The video concludes by emphasizing the importance of nuanced and accurate media representation of climate science, contrasting it with the often sensationalized or simplified content on platforms like YouTube.
Q & A
What was the main subject of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
-The documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' primarily focused on the issue of climate change, using a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Al Gore to highlight the scientific evidence and the urgency of addressing this global crisis.
Why was 'An Inconvenient Truth' considered significant upon its release?
-The film was significant because it was one of the first major documentaries to win two Academy Awards and it played a crucial role in popularizing the discussion on climate change, leading to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize the following year.
What was the controversy surrounding the distribution of 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools?
-The controversy arose when the film was distributed to schools in England, Scotland, and Wales, with critics arguing that it contained scientific inaccuracies and was politically motivated, potentially leading to political indoctrination of children.
What was the outcome of the court case 'Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills'?
-The court ruled that while 'An Inconvenient Truth' was substantially founded on scientific research, it contained nine errors and was a political film. It was decided that the film could still be shown in schools but with an updated guidance note to provide political balance and highlight the errors.
What are the three broad categories of errors identified in the film by the court?
-The errors were categorized into sensationalism, where Gore made claims that were not supported by the evidence at the time; attribution, where the film claimed specific events were caused by climate change without sufficient scientific backing; and a third category where some of the issues were not necessarily errors but were presented with more confidence than the evidence justified.
How has the field of extreme event attribution evolved since the release of 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
-Extreme event attribution has evolved significantly, with scientists now able to make statements with greater confidence about a wider range of events and their connection to climate change, thanks to advancements in climate modeling and a better understanding of the complex relationships involved.
What is the main issue with the way climate change is portrayed in 'An Inconvenient Truth' according to the video?
-The main issue is that the film sets a precedent for discussing climate change in a way that is heavily focused on individual actions and Al Gore's personal narrative, rather than emphasizing the need for societal and policy changes at a larger scale.
What is the role of media in shaping public understanding of climate science according to the video?
-Media, including films like 'An Inconvenient Truth', plays a significant role in shaping public understanding of climate science. However, the video suggests that media often simplifies or sensationalizes information, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the nuances and complexities of the scientific consensus on climate change.
Why does the video argue for a more thoughtful approach to media content on complex topics like climate change?
-The video argues for a more thoughtful approach because complex topics like climate change require nuanced discussion that is often lost when media is pressured to simplify or sensationalize content for the sake of viewer engagement and retention.
What is Nebula, as mentioned in the video?
-Nebula is a streaming service for educational content creators that offers a platform free from the pressures of algorithms and ads, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth content. It is subscription-based and supports creators directly, providing a space for thoughtful and ad-free viewing experiences.
Outlines
🌍 An Inconvenient Truth: Impact and Controversy
The paragraph discusses the significant cultural and educational impact of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth', directed by Davis Guggenheim and presented by Al Gore. It highlights the film's commercial and critical success, including winning two Academy Awards and influencing educational curriculums. However, it also delves into the controversy surrounding the film's accuracy, particularly in the UK court case 'Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills'. The court found the film to be substantially accurate but identified nine errors, which are categorized into sensationalism, attribution issues, and other minor points. The paragraph emphasizes the film's role in shaping public discourse on climate change, despite its flaws.
🐾 Sensationalism in Climate Change Communication
This section critiques Al Gore's approach in 'An Inconvenient Truth' for sensationalizing certain aspects of climate change. It points out that while Gore's claims about Greenland's ice melting, polar bears drowning, and Pacific Islands evacuations have scientific backing, the manner of presentation can be misleading. The paragraph argues that Gore's failure to provide specific timeframes or context may create an exaggerated sense of urgency. It also discusses the broader issue of how climate change is communicated, suggesting that the data itself is compelling without the need for exaggeration.
🌪️ Attribution of Extreme Weather Events to Climate Change
The paragraph delves into the complexities of attributing specific weather events to climate change, a field known as extreme event attribution. It explains the process of running climate models to compare weather patterns with and without human-induced climate change to determine the likelihood of events. The discussion includes the limitations of such studies, particularly around the time the film was made. The paragraph also addresses the court's ruling on the film's erroneous claims about Hurricane Katrina, snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro, and the drying of Lake Chad, stating that the science at the time did not support such direct causal links.
🔍 Debunking Misconceptions: The Science Behind Climate Change
This section challenges some of the errors identified by the UK High Court in 'An Inconvenient Truth', suggesting that with the benefit of hindsight and additional research, some of Gore's points were more accurate than initially acknowledged. It discusses the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures, coral bleaching due to climate change, and the potential collapse of the Atlantic ocean conveyor. The paragraph argues that while the film may have overstated some points, the underlying science supports the broader message about the urgency of climate change.
🌱 The Legacy of An Inconvenient Truth and the Politics of Climate Change
The final paragraph reflects on the legacy of 'An Inconvenient Truth', critiquing its focus on Al Gore's personal narrative and its impact on the political discourse around climate change. It suggests that the film may have inadvertently contributed to a partisan approach to climate policy and discussion. The paragraph also touches on the film's conclusion, which emphasized individual actions over broader societal or policy changes. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of accurate and nuanced communication of climate science, especially in media, and the role of platforms like Nebula in supporting such content.
🎥 The Role of Media in Shaping Climate Change Narratives
This paragraph discusses the broader implications of how media, including 'An Inconvenient Truth', shapes public understanding and discourse on climate change. It contrasts the simplified narratives often presented in media with the complex and nuanced nature of scientific research. The paragraph also addresses the challenges faced by content creators in balancing attention-grabbing strategies with the need for accurate and thoughtful communication of scientific topics. It ends by promoting Nebula, a streaming service that supports nuanced and ad-free content, as an alternative platform for educational media.
🙏 Personal Reflections and Acknowledgments
In a personal note, the paragraph expresses gratitude to the community for their support during a period of personal loss. It acknowledges the contributions of guest creators and patrons who have supported the channel's content. The paragraph also thanks Professor Dan Mitchell for his insights on climate science and expresses appreciation for the viewership and engagement with the channel's content.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡An Inconvenient Truth
💡Climate Change
💡Sea Level Rise
💡Polar Bears
💡Attribution
💡Extreme Event Attribution
💡CO2 Concentration
💡Coral Bleaching
💡Atlantic Ocean Conveyor
💡Political Propaganda
💡Education Act of 1996
Highlights
An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary by Davis Guggenheim, was based on Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation and was both a commercial and critical success.
The film won two Academy Awards and contributed to Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
In 2007, the film was part of a UK court case, Dimmock versus Secretary of State for Education and Skills, questioning its accuracy and political bias.
Justice Michael Burton ruled that the film was substantially scientific but contained political elements and identified nine errors.
The film's discussion of Greenland's ice melting and potential sea level rise was criticized for not specifying the time frame.
Gore's depiction of polar bears swimming due to melting ice was challenged as an exceptional event, not the norm.
Claims of Pacific Islanders evacuating due to sea level rise were disputed for lack of evidence at the time.
The film was criticized for attributing specific extreme events like Hurricane Katrina directly to climate change, which was not supported by the science at the time.
The film's portrayal of the drying of Lake Chad and snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro as direct results of climate change was deemed misleading.
The relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was oversimplified in the film, according to the court's ruling.
The film's assertion about coral bleaching being caused by climate change was supported by weaker evidence at the time.
Gore's theory about the Atlantic ocean conveyor potentially stopping due to climate change was seen as an overstatement based on the evidence available.
The film's focus on Al Gore and its political framing may have contributed to the partisan nature of climate change discussions.
The film's legacy is criticized for framing climate change as an individual problem rather than a societal or policy issue.
The video discusses the importance of accurate media representation of climate science and the potential impact of An Inconvenient Truth on public discourse.
The video concludes by differentiating the errors in the film from those made by climate change skeptics, emphasizing the film's overall alignment with scientific consensus.
The video is sponsored by Nebula, a streaming service that promotes nuanced content and is free from algorithmic influence.
Transcripts
this video is sponsored by nebula in
2006 An Inconvenient Truth was released
a documentary feature film directed by
Davis Guggenheim based on a PowerPoint
presentation delivered all over the
world by once U.S vice president Al Gore
the film went on to be immensely
commercially and critically successful
becoming the first documentary feature
to win two Academy Awards somewhat more
impressively the following year Al Gore
also received the Nobel Peace Prize
shared with the intergovernmental panel
on climate change for his efforts in
promoting climate science notably via
the film at this time I was in school
and I remember watching the film in a
science class it was one of those magic
double periods where the teacher wheeled
in the TV and the entire class just went
yes at that impressionable time I
thought the film was very good and it
definitely made an impact on me
re-watching it now is interesting
especially when you consider that in
2007 the year that Gaul received his
Nobel Peace Prize his film was at the
center of a court case around
misinformation and scientific propaganda
in schools you see in 2006 the
governments of England Scotland and
Wales launched initiatives to distribute
films about climate change to be shown
in secondary schools one of these films
being An Inconvenient Truth which was
accompanied by a guidance note this
distribution was opposed by a group of
people who claimed that An Inconvenient
Truth contained a multitude of
scientific errors and was politically
motivated and thus that the distribution
of the film to schools amounted to
political indoctrination of children
this opposition culminated in dimmock
versus Secretary of State for education
and skills in the UK's High Court a
judge had to rule in consultation with
the scientific literature Was An
Inconvenient Truth accurate in other
words did it represent the scientific
mainstream and further was it a
political film Justice Michael Burton
ruled that An Inconvenient Truth is
quote substantially founded upon
scientific research and fact albeit that
the science is used in the hands of a
talented politician and Communicator to
make a political statement and to
support a political program and that
quote the film advances four main
scientific hypotheses Each of which is
very well supported by research
published in respected peer-reviewed
journals and Accords with the latest
conclusions of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change however he also
identified nine errors in the film that
I've broken down into three broad
categories but I think the film contains
another error a much larger one that the
judge couldn't possibly have known about
and so wasn't included in the court case
so in this video let's talk about those
nine errors in perhaps the most
significant piece of climate change
media ever made and that one extra and
what they all tell us about climate
science the first group of Errors can be
described as sensationalism Gore talks
about greened and melting polar bears
drowning and Pacific Islands being
evacuated in each case the fundamental
idea that Gore talks about has strong
scientific backing however the way in
which he talks about these ideas is a
little more problematic in the first
instance Gore talks about how if
Greenland or an equivalent ice mass in
Antarctica melted then Global sea levels
would rise by up to 7 meters and this
would be to put it mildly catastrophic
as Gore demonstrates with maps of major
cities that would be flooded the issue
with this is that while seven meters of
sea level rise is a perfectly reasonable
estimate for Greenland melting that
melting and so that sea level rise would
take place over centuries and Gore in
the film never actually mentions a time
frame to be clear Greenland is melting
it's actually melting faster than we
thought it would and this this is
contributing to accelerating sea level
rise but no scientist is seriously
expecting to see multiple meters of sea
level rise this century they didn't back
in 2006 either Gaul was being somewhat
disingenuous in his presentation not
exactly lying but Lying by Omission
making this issue which is serious seem
more urgent than it really is the
judge's rulings on the other two errors
in this category were similar at one
point in the film Gore talks about how
polar bears are having to swim in open
ocean due to Melting Arctic sea ice and
this has resulted in some bears drowning
while Arctic sea ice is absolutely
retreating in summer and some bears have
been found drowned this was an
exceptional event seemingly caused by a
storm similarly Gore states that Pacific
Islands are being inundated due to
rising sea levels and citizens are
having to evacuate to New Zealand while
sea level rise is happening very quickly
in the Western Pacific as much as 30
centimeters of Rise since 1950 as far as
I can tell there was no actual evidence
for evacuations happening at this time
Greenland and is Mountain Arctic sea ice
is also melting and that very much poses
a threat to Polar Bear populations they
also both contribute to sea level rise
around the world threatening the
flooding of low-lying Nations but in all
of these cases Gore makes claims that
are either ambiguous or he frames the
issue in such a way that implies the
issues are more urgent than the evidence
really supports which is super
frustrating because you don't need to
exaggerate when talking about the
climate crisis the data speaks for
itself we can be sure that we will face
major issues this Century no hype needed
and speaking of being sure so I'm Dan
Mitchell I'm a professor of climate
science at the University of Bristol the
next category of errors in An
Inconvenient Truth has to do with
attribution the attribution is where we
take some observations and we look at
what's causing a change in those
observations that's what's called Trend
attribute Vision but there's a subset
which looks at specific extreme events
we call that extreme event attribution
and that essentially says how much more
likely or not was that event due to
human induced climate change events that
may include Hurricane Katrina the
drawing of Lake Chad and the snow
melting on Mount Kilimanjaro all events
mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth as
being caused by climate change now I
should point out that attribution
studies are very difficult to do and
they involve running complex computer
models of the Earth's atmosphere over
and over again the real problem we have
is that we only have one planet so we
only have one set of observations
because we have climate change within
our system it's very hard to say what it
would have been like without climate
change so the way we get around that is
we run climate models where we include
the climate change signal but also where
we exclude it co2s from Human induced
emissions in one scenario and without
them in another scenario and then we
compare what the weather looks in in
that world without climate change versus
that world with climate change and then
we look at where the observation sits
within those two weather patterns and
that tells us the attribution of the
event you'll notice that Dan talked
about shifting weather patterns and
probabilities the idea is an attribution
study can tell you if the weather
conditions leading to say a lake drying
up became more likely due to climate
change not if the lake drying up was
caused by climate change and the other
thing to stress is that this is really
quite a new idea it's only slightly
older than An Inconvenient Truth itself
An Inconvenient Truth actually occurred
at a very interesting time in
attribution science it's where the field
of extreme event attribution was
actually first developed that was around
2003 they were all based on large-scale
uh by large I mean sort of UK level
um meteorological variables so heat
waves mainly the reason we looked at
heat waves was because that's a very
strong signal within climate change over
the 20 years since then we've got finer
detail and we started looking at other
variables so we have started looking at
droughts for instance or flooding or
storms those sort of things in a higher
order problems at the time of
Inconvenient Truth there was no way an
attribution study could have been done
on Katrina Justice Burton rules that An
Inconvenient Truth was erroneous in
claiming that Hurricane Katrina the
snowmelt on Kilimanjaro and the drying
of Lake Chad were caused by climate
change as the science simply did not
support such confident statements
frankly it still doesn't attribution
Studies have come a long way since the
time of the film scientists can now make
statements with greater confidence and
describing a greater range of events but
even now to say that climate change was
responsible for say Hurricane Katrina is
misleading in fact the science says that
climate change may have led to certain
elements of Hurricane Katrina being more
intense and similar statements about the
reduction in snow on Mount Kilimanjaro
though interestingly less so actually
about the drying of late Chad and this
reductivism taking a complex statement
and reducing it down to a Snappy
headline is a problem with how the media
talks about attribution studies in
general there are deep nuances in what
we do one of the problems is attribution
is used a lot in the media
and they were a Snappy title and you
can't get across the 10 caveats in a
title and so those things are picked up
they used elsewhere and they often don't
exactly correspond to what we were
trying to say and we haven't found a
good way of getting around that without
having a sort of article attached to it
the final category of errors are those
that to be honest I don't think are
errors at all some of this is set with
the benefit of hindsight or more
accurately the benefit of nearly two
decades more observations and Analysis
but some areas I do just flat out
disagree with like the first one in
which the judge rules that the
relationship between global average
temperature and CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere is not exact as Gore states
in the film in fact he says the
relationship is actually very
complicated but there is one
relationship that is far more powerful
than all the others and it is this when
there is more carbon dioxide the
temperature gets warmer because it traps
more heat from the sun inside which is a
very good description complex
relationship but the overwhelming
correlation over the time scales
depicted is that when CO2 levels go up
so too does the global average
temperature I don't think Gore actually
said anything wrong another error in
Justice Burton's judgment was to do with
coral reefs by the time of the film's
release reefs around the world were
being bleached this is a process in
which the delicate symbiotic
relationship within a coral is disrupted
leading to the coral turning white and
in most cases starving Gore argues that
this is happening because of climate
change the judge cited the then latest
ipcc report in saying that the causes of
coral bleaching are difficult to
separate and there's no clear link to
climate change though with the benefit
of hindsight they absolutely are being
bleached because of climate change due
to rising sea temperatures the evidence
at the time was however undeniably
weaker and lastly Gore talks at some
length about the Atlantic ocean conveyor
an ocean current that transports Heat up
to the North Atlantic you've probably
heard of the surface component of this
the Gulf Stream the idea according to
gore is that if enough melt water ran
off a melting Greenland that this
conveyor could stop as it has done in
the past at the time the scientific
consensus was that while the conveyor
may slow it was very unlikely to
actually stop subsequent analysis
indicates that in some pessimistic
scenarios this collapse is actually
likely so I don't think the film is
really wrong just that the evidence at
the time didn't really justify the
confidence Gore implied in his
conclusion so these were the nine eras
the UK High Court found that An
Inconvenient Truth contained it's worth
restating at this point that Justice
Burton found that the film was
substantially founded upon scientific
research and that the film's four main
scientific hypotheses were very well
supported by research published in
respected peer-reviewed journals the
main thrust of what the film is getting
at is accurate the nine errors are the
exception rather than the norm and they
certainly don't undermine or compromise
the overall message of the film but what
about that one extra big error that the
judge can possibly have known about well
that is how An Inconvenient Truth set
the precedent for how we talk about
climate change re-watching the film now
is interesting Gore very clearly makes
the film as much about himself as about
climate change which is smart humans are
drawn to other humans to individuals
instead of Concepts however because of
who Gore is and how he frames the issue
politically within the film an immediate
battle line is drawn the film reads as
if you think I should have won the
election in the year 2000 then you are
on my side the side of Science and of
course if you disagree then you are on
the other side almost 20 years on from
the release of an inconvenience truth
the dialogue around climate change
remains almost unchanged it's still
partisan no perhaps nowhere more so than
in the United States it's still mired in
personal ad hominem attacks and perhaps
most unforgivably still focused on the
actions of individuals a lot of people
seem to have forgotten that An
Inconvenient Truth describing this
apocalyptic threat to humanity ends with
a plea for the audience to do more such
as by buying more energy efficient light
bulbs it's literally the first
recommendation it makes the film has a
legacy of climate change as a problem of
individuals not as a problem of
Societies or of policy and watching it
today even knowing the positive
attention that the film unquestionably
brought to the issue it's an
uncomfortable framing it makes me wonder
how different the discourse and the
climate policy landscape would be today
if the film was just a little less
focused on Gore the individual and a
little more focused on what good climate
policy on a national and sub-national
level looks like how much time did we
lose with this film what Can An
Inconvenient Truth tell us about climate
science
not a lot sorry if you clicked on this
video expecting me to pull the threads
on some Global conspiracy that were just
poking out of a film by Al Gore his film
is almost entirely accurate and the
hypotheses of climate change as depicted
in the film are very well supported by
the evidence what it can tell us a lot
about is the relationship between
science and politics remember that the
court case was partly about how accurate
the film was but also about whether it
was a political film or not is it a
political film
yes obviously climate science is about
describing a physical system and making
predictions about the future state of
that system based on our understanding
interpreting those predictions as a
problem requires a value judgment
something that science in its purest
form does not do calling attention to a
problem seen in scientific predictions
and proposing solutions to it is the
domain of activism and politics not
science An Inconvenient Truth very much
falls into the category of politics it
just so happens that the issue and the
proposed solutions to it are based on
well-documented science as such Justice
Burton ruled that the film was clearly
political and thus that the distribution
of the film in its current form to
schools was in breach of the Education
Act of 1996. to correct this going
forwards the film would be distributed
with an updated guidance note with more
neutral language and a longer list of
organizations that oppose the
interpretation of climate change as a
problem as well as high highlighting the
nine eras in the film so did the ruling
find that An Inconvenient Truth was
unscientific propaganda and shouldn't be
shown in schools
no the ruling found that An Inconvenient
Truth was almost entirely accurate and
that it advocates for political change
thus for political balance the film
should be distributed with some updated
guidance for teachers which is what
happened going forward though that idea
of balance is what I want to finish this
video with An Inconvenient Truth is not
a work of science it is a piece of media
describing science to a political end
that gets some things wrong and in so
doing joins a very large body of media
however do not make the mistake of
equating the errors of an inconvenience
truth with those made by people
skeptical of anthropogenic climate
change climate Skeptics cherry-pick data
and they take findings out of context in
order to make statements that fly
completely counter to the scientific
consensus while those who advocate for
action on climate change make statements
that are missing caveats or are
insufficiently supported by the evidence
though still ground did in fact and do
so in order to accelerate action action
that is deemed necessary based on the
scientific consensus both are
problematic and An Inconvenient Truth
definitely Strays into the latter
but they are not the same this film
contains many errors it shows that how
we talk about climate change matters our
response to it has been affected and I
think weakened by this film but it
stands apart from Media made by those
skeptical of anthropogenic climate
change take all the errors out of this
film and it still presents a complete
compelling argument based on
inconvenience but true fact
not something you can say about Media
made in scientific opposition to it a
crucial point in this video is that
media describing science is not the same
as science itself especially when it
comes to Nuance media is encouraged to
be Snappy grab your audience's attention
don't go for anything complicated the
exact opposite of Science and in a world
where content is served to us
algorithmically this only intensifies
here on YouTube creators are locked in a
Perpetual arms race for attention
encouraged to sensationalize to get
clicks and keep things simple to retain
viewers interest speaking as a YouTube
Creator I feel encouraged by the
platform to avoid nuance and instead
double down on attention grabbing takes
and video titles it's not an environment
that encourages thoughtful careful
content a video platform with no
algorithm and curated content would be
much better in communicating complex
topics such as found in science or
sociology and that's exactly what nebula
the sponsor of this video is nebula is a
streaming service owned and operated by
a collection of educational content
creators including me that host videos
on a variety of topics including media
literacy science literacy and of course
climate change with no pressure to
simplify or avoid Nuance to appease a
watch time-based algorithm this was our
opportunity as creators to create a
whole new streaming service in the form
that we wanted so we made it as we would
want to use ourselves with no adverts
instead nebula operates on a
subscription model with your monthly or
yearly subscription partly going
directly to creators and partly
financing new original content in fact a
topic mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth
is the drying of the Colorado River due
to shifting precipitation patterns due
to climate change if you would like to
see a feature-length thoughtful
documentary made just last year on this
subject by Wendover Productions then you
can do so on nebula and the Colorado
problem is just one of hundreds of
projects funded by nebula and only
available on the site nebula has over
two-thirds of a million active users who
enjoy content across a wide range of
subjects without the reductive influence
of an algorithm dictating what form
videos can take and they do so without
any adverts in sight if you sign up
today then you can join them and
directly support the work I do you can
do so by going to go.nebula.tv Simon
Clark Linked In the description and if
you sign up with my link you'll also get
an amazing 40 discount on a yearly
subscription meaning you can enjoy a
thoughtful ad-free viewing experience
for just over 2.50 a month that's
go.nebula.tv
Simon Clark with thanks to nebula for
sponsoring this video and for
encouraging nuanced content
thank you for watching the video if
you're watching some distance in the
future this was the first video I made
after I took some time out due to the
passing of my father I just want to take
this opportunity to say a huge thank you
to the community that's built up around
my work for the immensely heartfelt
generous messages I've received from
yours thank you and also thank you to my
friends Kat and Thomas for making some
guest videos for me on this channel
whilst I was away if you haven't seen
those already then go check them out
thanks must also go to Professor Dan
Mitchell at the University of Bristol
for chatting to me about attribution and
to these lovely people these are my
executive producers on patreon if you
would like to support my work and vote
for a video topic a month this was
actually a video topic chosen by my
patrons then please do check out my
patreon Linked In the description and
thank you to everybody who has signed up
recently if you enjoyed the video please
do pop it a like and do share it with
people that you think may get something
whether that's in group chats or on
subreddits please do check out those
guest videos from Kat and Thomas and
that just leads me to say thank you
again for watching I'll see you in the
next one
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Election Commission ki 2 Nmbri || Hakoomat ka Awaam ko Naya Dhoka || Imran Riaz Khan VLOG
RAKYAT AKAN MARAH DAN MELAWAN, JIKA DPR MELALUI BALEG NEKAD BATALKAN PUTUSAN MK
I Was Worried about Climate Change. Now I worry about Climate Scientists.
Error or Fraud - A New Bombshell in the Data
La décision européenne qui peut changer beaucoup de choses pour la France
The In depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)