Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth United States Science

Why 200 US Climate Scientists are Hosting a 100-Hour YouTube Livestream (space.com) 130

Posted by EditorDavid from the change-in-the-weather dept.
"More than 200 climate and weather scientists from across the U.S. are taking part in a marathon livestream on YouTube," according to this report from Space.com. For 100 hours (that started Wednesday) they're sharing their scientific work and answering questions from viewers, "to prove the value of climate science," according to the article.

The event is being stated in protest of recent government funding cuts at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation. (The event began with "scientists documenting their last few hours at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies as the office was shuttered.") The marathon stream features mini-lectures, panels and question-and-answer sessions with hundreds of scientists, each speaking in their capacity as private citizens rather than on behalf of any institution. These include talks from former National Weather Service directors, Britney Schmidt, a groundbreaking glacier researcher, and legendary meteorologist John Morales.

In its first 30 hours, the stream got over 77,000 views.

Ultimately, the goal of the event is to give members of the public the chance to learn more about meteorology and climate science in an informal setting — and for free. "We really felt like the American public deserves to know what we do," Duffy said. However, many of the speakers and organizers also hope the transference of this knowledge will spur people to take action. The event's website features a link to 5 Calls, an organization that makes it easy for folks to contact their representatives in Congress about the importance of funding climate and weather research.

Why 200 US Climate Scientists are Hosting a 100-Hour YouTube Livestream More | Reply

Why 200 US Climate Scientists are Hosting a 100-Hour YouTube Livestream

Comments Filter:

  • Not relevant (Score:5)

    by clovis ( 4684 ) on Saturday May 31, 2025 @11:06AM (#65418803)

    The science is not relevant.
    The effects of global warming on the USA and Europe are not relevant to why there is a large and well funded movement against climate science.
    Qui bono.

    • The science is not relevant. The effects of global warming on the USA and Europe are not relevant to why there is a large and well funded movement against climate science. Qui bono.

      I am not sure that is correct. The science seems to be irrelevant. Most of the science is directed at telling us what we already know. We know global warming is happening. We have a pretty good understanding of what would reduce and eventually end it. The barriers to doing something are political and economic, not scientific knowledge.

      Nor is the problem really public opinion. Most people accept climate change is happening. And its not better scientific information that is going to change the minds of peop

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 )

        I mean we can say that but Jimmy Carter was talking about climate change back in the 1970's and the recommendations were the same as today: start planning on cutting back on burning fossil fuels, start to embrace renewable energy sources. In a perfect metaphor Carter put solar panels on the White House as a symbolic gesture only to have Reagan come in and tear them down.

        We haven't gotten anything done precisely because "Most people accept climate change is happening" is not a true statement and when we hav

        • And the whole "private jets" and Bill Gates is a bad faith distraction used as a punching bag excuse as to why we can't do anything about the issue until we deal with those "dirty liberal elites" first, an argument straight from the playbook of other end of the "wealthy, powerful" interests. You can claim climate science is a distraction but this a bad faith distraction with malicious intent. And we know they are malicious liars because they stand in the way of any regulations that would curb that behavior like a carbon tax or restrictions on small plane use or fucking anything.

          The priests and the prophets shall not be held accountable for their sins for they are The Anointed and the True Believers. Yea, though the salt of the Earth shall all bow before the Carbon God and give sacrifice to receive redemption and salvation for everlasting virtue.

          • I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's actually as we see a real symbolic problem but it is just that, symbolic so if you're upset about private flight use but you also wouldn't support, or support politics that would oppose say a carbon tax then you contradictory is all I am saying.

            • I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's actually as we see a real symbolic problem but it is just that, symbolic

              Those emissions are not symbolic. And a "carbon tax" isn't going to stop emissions from those who can afford to pay it. Which is most emissions if you consider that wealth and emissions are pretty much joined at the hip. Almost all creation and use of wealth has associated emissions. And all emissions are associated with the creation and use of wealth.

              You want real emission reductions, not invented ones. Most people in the world never fly anywhere. Eliminating passenger airlines would have no effect on them

              • 1.8% of 4% which is private flights vs all flights of worldwide carbon load. Yes it's technically not symbolic in that yes it contributes but we are basing our prescriptions for the 99.5% off a 0.5%, where else do we do this?

                • You begin by leading by example, not hypocrisy. When I am lectured by anyone whose carbon footprint is many orders of magnitude greater than my own about how I need to ride my bicycle to the grocery to save the planet while they fly in private jets for the lecture, they can kiss they darkest part between my ass cheeks. At least Greta understood this during her 15 minutes. John Kerry, Bill Gates and all the "Rules for thee, not for me" bunch need to put up or shut up.

                • where else do we do this?

                  How many emissions are avoided by replacing a perfectly good furnace with a heat pump? If you reduce the problem down to one action then no one has to do anything because it is insignificant. Of course, that is exactly how we all feel about our own contribution.

                  • You just are not listening or maybe I am not clear.

                    Nobody is saying to just leave private flights alone or that reducing them doesnt help, thats the person you are arguing against in your brain.

                    My point, I will repeat it, that this obsession with private flights and using as an excuse for inaction is bad faith and distracting.

                    Also heat pumps makes my point, what has expanded the use of heat pumps? Did we price hike gas furnaces or ban them? No, we made subsidies and combined with rising fuels costs and wow,

                    • combined with rising fuels costs

                      Exactly, we raised the price of natural gas. The cost of home heating went up and putting in a heat pump became a way to save money. Did the subsidies help? Yes. But someone without air conditioning adding a heat pump to air condition their home is not reducing emissions.

                      You are ignoring the reality that someone buying an EV's doesn't actually reduce emissions, it increases them. People aren't "replacing" an ICE vehicle, they are simply adding another vehicle to the road and someone else is using the ICE

                    • Who raised the price of natural gas?

                      Someone who would otherwise not be driving any vehicle because there wasn't one available.

                      This scenario makes up a tiny fraction of buys, 98% of the time said person is driving some sort of car before they buy said used car, they are trading, it's sideways. And it ignored all the other points of inducing demand.

                      Someone who otherwise would be driving that used vehicle is now walking, biking, taking the bus or skipping the trip.

                      This belies the reality of America where many, many don't have that option. I'd love it if they did but they don't. Your scenario does not work in reality. Mine does (it's happening right now)

                    • This belies the reality of America where many, many don't have that option.

                      The reality is that if there isn't a vehicle available those are the only options. But you are right, make a vehicle available and they will take that option. And someone buying a new vehicle, EV or ICE, means there is one more vehicle available for someone who didn't previously have that option. And they will use it to take trips instead of walking, riding a bike, using transit or skipping the trips entirely.

                      This scenario makes up a tiny fraction of buys, 98% of the time said person is driving some sort of car before they buy said used car, they are trading, it's sideways.

                      That is complete nonsense. Yes, most people trade in a car when they buy a different one, new or u

        • And we know they are malicious liars because they stand in the way of any regulations that would curb that behavior like a carbon tax or restrictions on small plane use or fucking anything.

          Right, a carbon tax will get Bill Gates out of his jet. This is actual the malicious lie.

          we can't do anything about the issue until we deal with those "dirty liberal elites" first,

          That is right, because the "liberal elite" are no different than the "conservative elite" in using their power to protect their interests. The idea is that we need to have policies that allow people who can afford it to opt out of any change. And that is exactly what we have. Carbon offsets are the classic example. Bill Gates buys carbon offsets and somehow the emissions from his jet disappear.

          We got the first major climate legislation literally like 3 years ago

          And it was mostly a green-

          • Right, a carbon tax will get Bill Gates out of his jet. This is actual the malicious lie.

            I get wanting the satisfaction of wanting to do a bit of moral punishment but we should also support the actual economic href="https://www.econstatement.org/">economic thing. Are we all capitalists and do we accept some econ 101 stuff here or not? What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?

            How do subsidies to encourage people to add an electric car to the fleet reduce emissions?

            By making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity. Again, this is econ 101, induce demand. We

            • What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?

              Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.

              making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity

              Right. So to be clear this was an incentive to promote the car industry. It will get people to buy cars with a high emission price in construction instead of driving their existing car.

              On the other hand, if you want people to stop buying new ICE cars you increase the price of new ICE cars. And when fewer people buy new ICE cars, there eventually are fewer used ICE cars for people to drive

              • What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?

                Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.

                making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity

                Right. So to be clear this was an incentive to promote the car industry. It will get people to buy cars with a high emission price in construction instead of driving their existing car. On the other hand, if you want people to stop buying new ICE cars you increase the price of new ICE cars. And when fewer people buy new ICE cars, there eventually are fewer used ICE cars for people to drive

                • Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.

                  Cool, good luck with writing that law in a way that only restricts the people and flights we consider "private" or maybe the simpler solution is to charge for the externality created and then use collected funds to fund your other reduction efforts elsewhere and the market will adjust. Hell we can make the taxation progressive off the emissions-per--passenger-mile. I mean more power to you but it's going to be way more disruptive.

                  Also I don't know if you realize but cars eventually stop working. You're

                  • Cool, good luck with writing that law in a way that only restricts the people and flights we consider "private"

                    Private means anyone traveling in a private plane. It excludes military planes and little else. Its not really that hard, you just abolish "private" airlines.

                    then use collected funds to fund your other reduction efforts elsewhere and the market will adjust.

                    So why does someone who can afford it stop flying. This is exactly what people see. The solution is for people who can't afford it to change their behavior while people who can afford it are unaffected. Its not hypocrisy its pure self-interest. And it will fail to stop climate change. Because the people who create most of the emissions can use the mone

                    • Ok, draw a legal, enforceable and constitutional line between commercial and private that excludes all private flights but does not exclude any commercial flights.

                    • I'll leave that to the lawyers. We have all sorts of regulations that distinguish between commercial airlines and private planes. The idea that it is unconstitutional is ridiculous, although perhaps not with the current court.

                    • The difference between "commercial" and "private" is blurry at best. Can't do it by aircraft size or are we banning personal aircraft? I can go call up a company and charter a Gulfstream for myself, is that "commercial" or "private"? I don't own the plane but I am buying an entire flight for 1 person but what's the difference between that and buying a ticket on a United 737?

                      It's not unconstitutional in the idea but it could be written or enforced in an unconstitutional manner. My point is why deal with al

      • The problem is the changes required are painful for people who are wealthy, powerful and ultimately responsible for most of the emissions.

        The changes being proposed as required are painful for everyone. Don't kid yourself it is just the rich who who have to suffer, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast masses of ordinary people.

        I've heard it suggested that everyone should be limited to 2 tons per capita of carbon emissions. To put that into perspective, that means everyone on earth has to live like the average person in India. In reality, the average Indian is going to strive to reach our level, not the other way around, an

        • The changes being proposed as required are painful for everyone.

          I have yet to see a seriously proposed change that will be painful for Bill Gates. The fact is there have been painful changes for coal miners in the US and lots of other people around the world. But almost none of those touch the affluent to the point of it being painful.

          • The changes being proposed as required are painful for everyone.

            I have yet to see a seriously proposed change that will be painful for Bill Gates. The fact is there have been painful changes for coal miners in the US and lots of other people around the world. But almost none of those touch the affluent to the point of it being painful.

            I hate to tell you this, but the rich will always have far more ability to work around change than you or I, so any change that is painful for Bill Gates will be far more painful for you. That is just reality. Unless you plan to just specifically target rich people, maybe rob them at gunpoint or something, but even then the climate still won't notice.

            • so any change that is painful for Bill Gates will be far more painful for you.

              A ban on private jets would have zero effect on me. I think it might be painful for Bill Gates. Limiting the size of houses to limit the emissions associated with heating and cooling them would have zero impact on me. It might be a problem for someone who can afford several large mansions.

              the rich will always have far more ability to work around change than you or I

              I think that is true, but one of the ways they work around it is by controlling what changes are considered. If we decided to ration emissions, I might not be affected at all if the ration was large enough. It would be a v

              • A ban on private jets would have zero effect on me. I think it might be painful for Bill Gates.

                It would have zero effect on the climate too. It would be a hardship for them flying business class I suppose. Without private jets the commercial airlines might step in and offer a higher tier of service. Now if you want to do something meaningful you could restrict flying for everyone. That probably won't fly in any democracy though, no pun intended.

                If we decided to ration emissions, I might not be affected at all if the ration was large enough. It would be a very unpleasant change for Bill Gates

                To actually be a meaningful quota it is going to have to be pretty low (I think I already mentioned 2 tons as an ostensible "sustainable" target) and you

                • It would have zero effect on the climate too

                  It would certainly have a bigger impact than a person getting rid of their gas stove or switching from 2 gallon per 100 mile hybrid to an EV.

                  Now if you want to do something meaningful you could restrict flying for everyone.

                  I agree. We should ban airline travel in general.

                  That probably won't fly in any democracy though, no pun intended.

                  It would certainly be easier to ban private jets if the only issue was the number of people affected. But in reality, not letting the wealthy fly private jets would be harder politically than making airline travel more expensive. This is why you hear support for a carbon tax, it only affects those who are price conscious

                  • It would certainly have a bigger impact than a person getting rid of their gas stove or switching from 2 gallon per 100 mile hybrid to an EV.

                    All of those things have no impact unless hundreds of millions of people do them. No individual's emissions are even a mere speck in the global total. Entire developed countries could go mostly un-noticed, rhetorically speaking.

                    I agree. We should ban airline travel in general.

                    Reality is going to be quite the let down for you.

                    This is why you hear support for a carbon tax, it only affects those who are price conscious.

                    I'm Canadian. We just got rid of our carbon tax, at least for now. I'm not convinced it is entirely dead though, it may still require more whacks in the future.,

                    • All of those things have no impact unless hundreds of millions of people do them.

                      There would be no climate change without them either.

                      Reality is going to be quite the let down for you.

                      Probably. More likely we will solve the problem of air travel by making flying too expensive for a lot more people. The same way we prevent people from flying around in private jets.

                    • I think any democratic government that tries to mess with people's vacations won't be in office for long. For the many people who think life is generally getting worse and look forward to that one indulgence that would be a proverbial line in the sand. Fortunately I think synthetic fuels will be the future for low emission air travel, but it is going to take time. I hope to one day burn e-fuels in my car also, but I don't lose sleep either way. Life goes on regardless.

                    • I think any democratic government that tries to mess with people's vacations won't be in office for long.

                      Most people don't fly off on vacation. But your assumption that it is "a line too far" for the privileged who do is probably correct. We have a crisis, but even the people who understand the crisis are not willing to sacrifice any of their lifestyle to address it. So they keep saying it isn't really necessary. I think the evidence that we can painlessly address climate change is slowly disappearing as new carbon emissions increase even as its obvious there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere.

        • Do you liars ever shut up?

          • If you think I'm lying then you will be happy to know that I won't be making any substantial changes to my way of life, and if you are correct it won't matter. I actually agree with you, I'm not the one proposing these things to begin with.
        • Have emissions of is not the same as live like. Plus, India has many people in grinding poverty with very low emissions and some with a standard of living little different to the typical European. It's a poor metric. Better is to look at what, with clean energy, better insulated homes, etc., what is possible then see how close that is to 2 tons.

          • India has many people in grinding poverty with very low emissions and some with a standard of living little different to the typical European.

            There are no examples of countries that low that don't have grinding poverty. As soon as you become a consumer your footprint rises quickly.

            Better is to look at what, with clean energy, better insulated homes, etc., what is possible then see how close that is to 2 tons.

            You can't live a modern western lifestyle and expect EVs and better insulation are going to make the world net zero by 2050. It's probably never going to actually be net zero, and certainly not anytime soon. Don't blame me, I don't control reality.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              As soon as you become a consumer your footprint rises quickly

              Whilst true, countries with similar Western standards of living can have quite different carbon footprints.

              You can't live a modern western lifestyle and expect EVs and better insulation are going to make the world net zero by 2050.

              It seems like it's worth trying, even if it simply slows the increase in atmospheric CO2.

              • I have no issue with making practical changes to lower my CO2 emissions, I don't need government in my pocket or my life to do that. I'm not going to make major changes or compromise my standard of living though. Large changes will have to happen organically over generations. That is just how it is. A lot of people have trouble with that reality, but that does not change it.
      • There's still plenty of denial about the causes of climate change, and some of it is evident here with the science being called fraudulent, "the earth was hotter once" and so on.

        • There's still plenty of denial about the causes of climate change,

          There are still people who claim the earth is flat. No one is doing any research to disprove it. The barriers to reducing emissions are economic and political, not factual. Its hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on it not being true. I think that idea is attributed to Mencken

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by clovis ( 4684 )

            There's still plenty of denial about the causes of climate change,

            There are still people who claim the earth is flat. No one is doing any research to disprove it. The barriers to reducing emissions are economic and political, not factual. Its hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on it not being true. I think that idea is attributed to Mencken

            Thank you.
            This is what I meant when I said "The science is not relevant".

  • Out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jrnvk ( 4197967 ) on Saturday May 31, 2025 @11:08AM (#65418807)

    It is hard to relate to people who expect the public to tune in, even partially, for a five-day livestream on a topic where meaningful action rarely follows. Most of us are busy with work, family, and everyday commitments - we simply cannot have the luxury of dedicating time to passive discussions.

    If you really want to make an impact, make the arguments more relatable to your audience.

    • Re:Out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serafean ( 4896143 ) on Saturday May 31, 2025 @12:37PM (#65418945)

      > If you really want to make an impact, make the arguments more relatable to your audience.

      If you keep living like you do, your grandkids won't have as good a life as you have. Can't be simpler than that.

      Now any 80+ IQ person will ask "why?", and that's where this marathon comes in. There's nothing simple about this issue.

    • You're not expected to tune in for 5 days straight man. You're expected to pop in here and there watch a few minutes and leave.

      It doesn't work though because arguments don't work anymore. Billionaires bought virtually all of the media so you can't get your message in front of people and even if you can it's going to be instantly counteracted by a deluge of right wing propaganda.

      What they need to be doing is focusing on voter suppression so that we can shift the Overton window by winning elections bu

  • I keep seeing the average temperature of the planet measured to a tenth of a degree.

    1) What is the definition of this? For example, how deep in the ocean do you go?
    2) How much data is involved? Won't it be some huge number of terabytes?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      The Koch Brothers paid a bunch of scientists to prove the figures being released by the IPCC and clinate scientists wrong. The scientists they paid concluded (in direct contradiction to the argument that scientists say what they're paid to say) that the figures were broadly correct, and that the average planetary temperature was the figure stated.

      My recommendation would be to look for the papers from those scientists, because those are the papers that we know in advance were written by scientists determined

    • I mean at least with regards to the NWS and NOAA this is all published, public information, what the sensors are, where they are located, their historical data, it's just the skeptics have a financial anf ideological interest in acting like all this information does not exist

      https://www.weather.gov/about/... [weather.gov]

      https://www.weather.gov/coop/ [weather.gov]
      (this has over 4000 sites participating)

    • Planet surface temperature, sea is a different dataset, land surface temperature too. Let me google that for you: https://cds.climate.copernicus... [copernicus.eu]
      And that's just one instance. NOAA has (had?) its own.

    • The temperature quoted is air temperature at the surface as no one currently lives permanently in the stratosphere or underwater, so surface air temperature is most relevant.

  • Preaching to the choir (Score:3)

    by 0xG ( 712423 ) on Saturday May 31, 2025 @11:19AM (#65418821)

    Unfortunately no opinions will be changed.
    People are married to their 'alternate facts'.

  • ...and just like with any marathon-grade event, it's going to be an absolutely borint and uproductive event with very low attendance numbers.

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Saturday May 31, 2025 @12:06PM (#65418899)

    Why? Because they want more funding, and they're scared of Trump.

  • A cost-benefit analysis comparing various options for responding to the reality of global warming. Reducing emissions being only one of the options, and which has not made a difference up to now and looks certain to fail in meeting targets.

    • Emissions, globally, haven't been reduced
  • Shouldn't they be writing it with quill pens, and distributing the sheets with mounted messengers? Less coal would be burned ...

  • In its first 30 hours, the stream got over 77,000 views.

    In other words, the general population does not care at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

Close