Recently, finance and insurance experts have begun warning that climate change might spell the end of capitalism as we know it. Blind alarmism or reasonable fear? Let’s take a look.

Just a brief explanation for what happened with last week's climate science video. Sorry for the confusion which, in hindsight, was rather unnecessary.

During the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, the media briefly latched on to a study which apparently blamed climate change for making the blazes more likely to occur and also more intense. But is that really what the study says? Let’s take a look.

A physicist suggests that we fix climate change with a 50 Gigaton nuclear bomb. This isn’t a joke. And I think it might actually work. A brief summary of this and other improbable physics fixes.

With the Trump administration fully in control of the U.S., it appears that the tides are changing in the climate change discussion. The White House has already withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, Trump wants to end what he’s calling “the green new scam,” and corporations around the world are abandoning their carbon neutrality pledges. How will this affect the climate change situation? Let’s take a look.

As humanity appears all too happy to keep warming up the planet, the consequences of our actions are catching up with us. Recent measurements indicate that climate change appears to negatively affect the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). This ocean current transports warm waters from the equator towards the Earth’s poles. If the AMOC collapses, middle and northern Europe might be in for a new ice age as temperatures could dip by up to 10 degrees Celsius on average. But it’s not just a problem for Europe, it would be a global disaster. Let’s take a look.

Climate engineering is a last ditch effort to protect humans from climate change – and we’re getting closer every day. Unfortunately, attempts of scientists to study the consequences of climate engineering have been stalled by environmental activists repeatedly. It’s a problem because climate engineering will come, and we would be better off if we understood the consequences.

Over the course of 2024, global temperatures hit record highs, yet again. Climate scientists are beginning to worry that temperatures are increasing faster than their models led them to expect. A paper that recently appeared said that the reason for the rapid warming is a reduction in certain types of clouds. If this is correct, and if that’s a trend, it’s very bad news. Welcome to 2025.

Many viewers have asked for a review of a recent study which supposedly shows “new evidence” in the climate change “debate.” More specifically, the study’s authors claim that we need to conduct more research into whether or not carbon dioxide emissions really affect climate change. I’ve had a look.

Climate scientists on social media are constantly pushing the idea that their research demands action. On one hand, climate change is a very real and pressing issue. But should climate scientists be mixing their research with activism?

Plenty of people have sounded the carbon emissions alarm over the years. In his recent-ish election season talk with Donald Trump, Elon Musk unexpectedly joined their ranks. Unexpected not because he supports action on climate change -- we've known this for a long time -- but because he claimed that rising carbon dioxide levels will make it uncomfortable to breathe, and give us headaches and nausea. Really?

Last year, a group of about 170 climate scientists signed an open letter to US President Joe Biden to cancel plans for a gas export terminal. One of the major reason was a new paper claiming that the climate impact of natural gas is even higher than that of coal, especially when exported to other countries. It turns out that this paper was riddled with mistakes.

The New York Times recently published an article about various climate change tipping points. Anthony Watts, a climate change denier, then published a blogpost calling the article “nothing more than speculation.” In this video I want to put these claims into perspective.

I suffered through an 80 mins lecture by Nobel Prize winner John F Clauser so that you don't have to. It's frankly embarrassing he goes on about this, as climate scientists have told him multiple times that it's trivially wrong. I want to put this out there so that anyone who gets questions about it has an easy way to answer them.

In this video I provide context on a podcast that Tucker Carlson recently did with climate change denier Dr Willie Soon. It is mainly about the abiogenic petroleum theory, that is, the question whether the crust of planet Earth contains hydrocarbons that do not come from fossils, but I also have some comments on what Willie Soon said about the honesty of climate scientists.

I love talking about things that climate scientists don’t want to talk about, and today I have a fun example. It's the reason why all those climate change graphs you've seen talk about a "temperature anomaly" rather than an absolute temperature.

Climate change has been heavily fuelled (ha) by fossil fuels, but can we really put the blame on the fossil fuel industry? Could they really have known what all the world's scientists didn't know? I don't think so. It's time we stop blaming others for our own faults.

I recently read that the world has crossed 1.5 degrees of warming above the pre-industrial level, the limit set in the Paris agreement. Then I read that we crossed it several years ago. Then some climate scientists objected. Why can’t climate scientists agree on how warm the Earth is? Have we already broken the Paris agreement? I have the summary.

Climate change is bad -- we hear this a lot. But this isn't the full story. Climate change also has benefits. And I think we need to talk about those too. Some regions of this planet will see milder climate and better conditions from agriculture. We'll see fewer people freeze to death, and, yes, some plants actually benefit from carbon dioxide.

Bill Gates has recently been under fire following an interview in which he said that planting trees won’t save us from climate change. Is he right? Is this just another quote taken out of context? What does the science say? Let’s have a look.