The reason we're so susceptible to disaster via environmental stress, is the shortness of a human lifetime (or shortness of memory). I can assure you that the concern of the 1970s was melting polar icecaps and rising sea-levels, and NOT the return of an ice age.
A kind of scary coincidence in this video is right at the end, you mention a tsunami hitting Japan, and that happened almost exactly one year later. Spooky.
@Hippieboy1547 "A kind of scary coincidence in this video is right at the end, you mention a tsunami hitting Japan, and that happened almost exactly one year later. Spooky.". No disrespect, but we should really all be aware of what the prior prognosis on a disaster hitting Japan would be on the world economy, made even before this event. "Spooky" is not quite the right response. Not sure our media are putting everything in the correct context.
@gulbirk He is...just not enough about the right stuff. He's done a lot to show up illusionists and whatnot, and also argue for atheism. He's not perfect.
@BigLundi He really isnt. Maybe about one or two things, but for crying out loud, he denied that passive smooking could have ANY effects on people. And he compleatly denides that increase carbon levels have anything to do with the warming going on.
@gulbirk Passive smoking, oyu mean second hand smoke? I don't know the science, but from personal experience I can say growing up in a household of smokers hasn't done anything to me. But yeah, I already know he has problems with global warming, and he's wrong about that...but again, nobody's perfect.
@BigLundi If you are skeptic, you dont have a problem with global warming. And the reason he has a problem with it (which is even stated in their own bullshit series) is because magazines like "time magazine" have said scientificly incorrect things.
Second hand smoke does indeed harm. THe gass that comes from the sigarette itself isnt exactly clean air.
@gulbirk Yes, but what's the extent of the harm? It causes people nearby to cough? You're not getting NEAR the concentration that the smoker is...so I doubt the harm is anywhere near what anyone who smokes gets, for one.
And for two, again, nobody is perfect, including Penn Jilette. Nobody is perfect at skeptical thinking. Everyone buys into something wrong at some point.
@gulbirk Well it's not all just a "it's a conspiracy" stuff when it comes to people who don't accept global warming. some of them just genuinely don't think the science supports it, don't feel the scientific consensus agrees with it, and feel 'real science' is disproving it regularly. Not that it's a hoax, just that it's only believed by a few silly people.
They're stil WRONG, but it's akin to the view people have of creationists.
@BigLundi """some of them just genuinely don't think the science supports it, don't feel the scientific consensus agrees with it, and feel 'real science' is disproving it regularly"" Ok, but science isnt about feeling. Science is about evidence. Disagreeing on evidence is the definition of anti-skeptecism.
Warming bodies experiencing convection accelerates flow rates withing them. Most of the earths heat is in the first fifteen thousand feet of earths atmosphere. Warming will accelerate the removal of heat from this fifteen thousand foot region. It does not happen at once. It happens over years. Watch for rapidly increasing snowfall above the Arctic Circle.
@Joshuanorris1980 That debunking from the other side - a great idea! Why don't you debunk it from the other OTHER side and see if your findings match potholer54's - and make a YouTube video. Then you'll really gain some credibility. Asking someone who's already done some great work to do more work, when you've done nothing but type a YouTube response, doesn't give you much credibility.
Check out the "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warning" - (YouTube won't let me post the URL)
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Volcanos and meteors can have a significant effect on climate. No one claims to predict volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes. Therefore no one can predict future climate. (If the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupted, things might get cool very quickly.)
Let me know if anyone can find a flaw in this reasoning.
@oracle2world : VERY EASY: HERE IS THE FLAW : volcanic activity unlike industrial driven CO2 emissions does not have a long term increase. Over the long term, CO2 from fossil fuels dwarfs the effect of volcanic activity. In addition to that, pre-industrial levels of CO2 are already the result of natural sinks and sources of CO2. The natural sources of CO2 are volcanoes. What do we learn from the last 400,000 years? CO2 concentrations have been between 200-280ppm (now it's almost 400ppm)
@nigelelsass - I was talking about dust in the atmosphere from volcanos, not CO2. Or a large meteor strike that puts a lot of dust in the air (or worse, wipes out most life).
The Tambora, Krakatoa, and Mt. Pinatubo volcanos are well documented. The Tunguska meteor strike is well documented. Volcanos and meteor strikes can't be predicted, so future climate can't be predicted. It is that simple.
@oracle2world : Well... ultimately the dust of volcanoes (including sulfur) gets washed away in a 10-year span; and like I explained - there is no global increase in average volcanic output and activity.
It is therefore very certain that in the course of the next decades global warming is the driver.
You cannot predict you will still be alive tomorrow - yet there is a 99.9% chance and you act accordingly - yet on climate you decide to act with the 0.1% probability !!!
@oracle2world : I agree that you cannot predict with 100% certainty ANYTHING - but we all act on the best probability - and this has worked in engineering, marketing, etc... anything else is being dellusional.
@nigelelsass - well "best probability" is sort of the crux of the entire argument. The probabilities of volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes are unknown. The best estimates are no better than random. Global warming (and mankind being bad) depends on about a dozen assumptions. Even at 95% confidence for all of them, you still end up about 50-50 when you multiply them. Destroying our economy on a coin flip doesn't resonate with me.
@oracle2world : Exactly the same argument holds for you being dead tomorrow: the FUTURE is unknown - a good approximation for the probability however exists. This range of uncertainties is given and choices are proposed accordingly. You try to negate this statistical estimate.
PS: Did the -30% emissions destroy the German or Swedish economy? Last I knew they were doing much better than the US - your argument doesn't hold.
@oracle2world : Once again, the probability of meteor and volcano eruptions are NOT COMPLETELY UNKNOWN... there is an extremely high probability that their long term average activity will be similar to the preceding 100,000 years.
Long story short, the chances that without action we do not end at 1000ppm concentrations are nearly zero. The chances that this tripled concentration would not yield a warming of at least 4°C are extremely low.
@oracle2world : And all recent estimates put sea level rise between 0.9 to 1.6m per century - which is already an even more colossal economic destruction than no action.
@nigelelsass - it is very easy adapting to a 2C rise in temperatures over 100 years. Same with sea level. There are winners and losers in climate change. Warm climate brings more winners than losers. AGW could be completely correct and still the downside is minimal. And if the winners are the US, Canada, northern europe and russia; and the losers near the equator, tough noogies.
@oracle2world : What gives industrialized nations the right to have most of the profit and roll over the cost to the most vulnerable nations which are also the lowest contributors to GHG emissions?
Anyway, over 2°C there are almost only losers.
I do not believe that the disappearance of a lot of the Netherlands, large parts of Louisiana, the Maldives, large parts of the Nile delta and Bangladesh is a win.
Have you been to your northen states? granitic soil doesn't become fertile overnight...
@nigelelsass - It is 102F right now where I live with high humidity. I did a 2 mile trek in 23 minutes. I also lived in Michigan, and froze my a* for three months in the winter. I don't give a s* about Lousiana; or countries near the equator or vulnerable nations that hate the US anyway - let them fry. The US, Russia, Canada, Alaska, northern Europe (civilized nations) can exploit resources and grow more food. Bottom line? I'm not reducing my standard of living no matter what.
@oracle2world : How exactly is the warming driven pinebeattle infestation making "winners" ? how are peat fires in Russia and the melting of their permafrost-built infrastructure making them "winners" ? how would a massive increase is aridity in the Southern US make the US a "winner" ? The lastest estimates for temperatures we are heading toward by the MIT are around 6.5°C (10°F). How would a dramatic increase in 100F+ days make the US a winner?
@oracle2world : Limiting the warming to 2°C would require a level of efforts you oppose. We already have 2-3°C "in the pipeline"; we can solely limit the damage and avoid a larger warming by taking action now. Whatever we will do we will exceed the level where cost surpasses by far the cost of action. Almost any lack of action now is economically sub-optimal, especially given the cheap cost of GHG abatement compared to very negative impacts expected from warming.
@oracle2world : Anyway - all sorts of micro-conflicts in the future resulting from the warming will at least partly at the cost of the US. National security and warming are already quite well discussed in the Pentagon.
@nigelelsass - you are a smart person and obviously well read on the subject. And AGW could be correct for all the wrong reasons. You can get a true conclusion from false premises, and even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. The bottom line is that China and India are not going to play ball, so there is no reason for the US to destroy its economy. If tree-huggers got on board for nuclear, everyone would be happy.
@oracle2world : You can wish AGW away as much as you want you will not be able to escape reality as we live in a world where laws of physics apply.
China and India are much smarter as they know they will be able to use the US "precedent" to justify their lack of action (which will obviously work as the US despite its more advanced technology and greater wealth spends less on curbing emissions). History will not be kind to the US - with good reasons.
@oracle2world : I am all for the US going nuclear if they are stupid enough to pay $200 per tonne of CO2 saved while we use measures which cost $2 to $40. I guess it's the price to pay for being a control freak which does not want measures people are not familiar with - and not trusting the market.
If the only measures you want are those recommended by a party you trust - go ahead - I have nothing against it. EVERY nation is free to achieve its climate goal the way it wants.
- I'm not reducing my standard of living no matter what.... destroying our economy doesn't resonate with me
- and then you advocate nuclear, an emission reduction option MUCH more expensive that plenty of others... with an LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) in the range of $13...$21 ct/kWh from estimates in the last 5 years.
@nigelelsass - relative energy cost estimates tend to be flakey. Depends on the country, natural resources nearby, hassle of licensing, construction costs, who is doing the estimate, etc. But I digress. I said nuclear would keep everyone happy. 24 x 7 x 365 reliable power, jobs in the US that can't be done by illegal immigrants, no CO2 emissions (if that matters to you), labor unions happy. "Alternative" energy is a joke.
@oracle2world : Once again - go for it - I can only see it as a "hobby" as there is no economic rationale for it - and ALL studies of the last 4 years find nuclear to be one of the most expensive types of generation (more costly than wind).
@oracle2world : If alternative energy is a joke, a joke was able to power at peak 50% of the spanish economy.... and regulary account for 16%.... yeah a joke. Also islands are power by hybrid joke-diesel solutions.
Around 60% of the pipeline for new generation in the US is also a "joke"...
boo hooo, no one cares about global warming, people care about having jobs and not green jobs being a guy manning some windmill in kansas. I used to work for the government and global warming/climate change is the biggest money racket of all time. Every project is proposed with an environmental twist claiming to be for the environment. Meanwhile, all the climateers are the stingiest people on the planet always bellyaching about how they deserve more money...they dont care as long as u pay...
@packerfan748 I always here the same shit over and over, it can create jobs, it's just that right winged propoganda has made people not trust scientists or green technology. By the way, who did you work with? Republicans?
@AdmiralCasey18 : The number of green jobs already created in Germany is around 400,000 for a populaltion of 80 million. Just the equivalent at the size of the US would be 1.6 million... not even counting this is only the beginning and we have to scale up the effort.
Americans really run the risks of becoming slaves of oil producing nations.
@AdmiralCasey18 Ha ha your failing to prove it is only surpassed by your "also it's real get over it." Ok freak I don't know what I'm going to do now, I guess I'll join you in green anxiety therapy.
Do the people quoting TIME Magazine know about the 1973 movie Soylent Green? It's set in the year 2022 and predicts a warmer climate, to the point where those who can afford it turn on the air condition and reminisce about the time when winters used to be cold.
I think you're all talking subjective garbage. Enough with the bullshit - display conclusions reached by proper scientific method, demonstrate your working, and stop trying to scare us. What kind of fool would deliberately manufacture information? A fool who cares more about money, influence and his own agenda than his fellow human beings, and it works both ways. And stop patronising us by taking us for idiots. Some of us aren't, and are sick of being lied to.
@AdmiralCasey18 Calling names does not win a debate. Oh I forgot the debate is over. Well we will see about that. The Global cooling continues as The Sun enters a Grand Minimum.
@AdmiralCasey18 Everything about Global warming suggests a religious like cult. The term denialist suggests that there is a proven fact being ignored, it is like denying Christ or a holocaust denier. The freethinking scientific skeptic is degraded like some unbelieving heathen. A good example is the above video. If you are interested in the fact that the Planet is cooling just search the topic. A good start would be layman's sunspot count.
@david222444 You that didn't answer my question, how is it like a religion? And climate change is just that. There is lots of evidence suggesting warming, but not cooling. Can you give me an article on who Layman is?
@david2244 It's the same tactic being used by CAGW-advocates that has been adopted throughout the ages to stifle dissent. What I find most interesting about CAGW is that it mirrors the scam adopted by the Church in the middle-ages when they sold people papal-indulgences to absolve for their sins to escape eternal damnation. The same thing is being done with global warming today. CO2 is now the sin and people are paying exorbinate amounts of money to escape a fast-approaching ecological doomsday.
@Joshuanorris1980 So if he had a video about gravity you would ask him to place himself in the skeptic shoes and try to disprove gravity. You understand what science is, or even journalism? I think it is important always have the best information and if you can eliminate the confusion great, but don't expect ever side to have equal claim to the truth, or what is most likely true. There is often a wrong side, and a right side.
@Joshuanorris1980 The whole point of this series is to debunk laymen misconceptions about the actual science, not to prove anything, unless you want proof that the news media generally gets it wrong when it comes to subjects that are nuanced and require critical thought. It sucks that the clearing up misconceptions seems bias to you, but that doesn't change the evidence he's provided in his videos, especially this one, because the physical world doesn't work on perceived biases.
I finally got round to watching this. It is quite.excellent. The only kind of debunking that's worth doing is the thorough kind. I look forward to watching the other videos in this series.
If 95% of scientists agree on climate change is happening and 5% says it is not or are unsure, why would anyone act as if the 5% were right on a crucial issue like this?
To me it's the equivalent of driving a bus and 19 ppl shout "Look out!" and one guys says "Keep driving." And listening to the one guy.
And EVEN if climate change wasn't happening, there is still proof that rising CO2 levels causes acidification of the sea that can change its ecosystems completely
@Hopefulfilment : Hey, the grandpa of my wife listened to those who told him not to worry and continue smoking ... some of the very same people - for ex. Frederick Seitz. Meanwhile, he has lung cancer...
Potholer ... I love your videos, and I agree with your premise, but has anyone done a study on the possibility of publication bias in the climate literature?
Publication bias leads to the publication of studies that report positive results. It's not a matter of personal bias, but rather, statistical bias in favor of studies that reject the null hypothesis (in this case, the null being that man-made gases have no effect on climate).
also google up the solar flares weve had recently and dabated issues on that the solar cool spots and flares are in some what conjuction with warming and dabate cooling also lord monckton outta context expoiltation
i watch alot of both sides and some new info from other side debunk sites one being a site of journalist and scitentist alike had reports on radiation mathmatic converts and with total rise in tempeture being 3/4 of a degree we had 3/4 of rad emits from sun also the part on axis the japan earth might have changed that
wasnt one of the epa main scientist on the warming levels due to man made co2s casuing climate change behind the theroys of the 70s ice age and now lowering water levels if found some equal unbyasit reports from a journalist team to debunk a bit of last video i do watch wit open minded but this are pretty byiast theres showable date from other sorces not mentioned and some of most recent are not all that i would like to see what you can bring up on this axis change to climate change
@Joshuanorris1980 =debunk it from the other side.= Please watch the whole series. You'll find debunks of Al Gore's movie, BBC reports about the inundation of Pacific atolls, Reuters reports about sea level rise threatening a community, reports about global warming causing a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and more hurricanes.... I've also asked people to send me any other misinformation that needs debunking. I look forward to getting a message from you telling me what I've missed.
@Joshuanorris1980 Well, tbh, I did. That was the first time someone had shook me and asked me to give proper attention to the issue. I was convinced that Kilimanjaro and Extinction and everything else were all caused by AGW. Now I know a little bit more, but I'm still convinced that this issue is one which demands immediate attention.
The main issue is that one of the main guys saying "cooling" was Hansen. He has been the squeaky box so that is why this story has gotten so much attention. Assuming what you say here is correct, what this shows is the power of elite media narratives.
And to answer your final question, perhaps the same kind of guys at CRU.
The main issue is that one of the main guys saying "cooling" was Hansen. He has been the squeaky box so that is why this story has gotten so much attention.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
Penn doesn't understand that nature could care less about human monetary systems, or even human existence. You can't bribe the atmosphere to stop warming to meet Washington's budget constraints. The climate only understands physics and we are not owed forgiveness for our mistakes, small or large.
These people just keep repeating the same canards over and over, expecting that enough dupes will keep listening. For example, that "ice age" thing was mostly about a 1974 article in TIME magazine, not some mass consensus that flip-flopped.
It was a speculative story, but right-wingers would rather fixate on the past (when it suits their anti-regulation agenda) and never move forward mentally. They're still stuck on that Genesis fable, for instance.
HA! 'Where did Time magazine get the idea that another ice age was coming (in the 1970's)? ' The same place Time magazine got the idea that the planet is COOKING now you conceited twit; From vested interest. Sorry, but the connection between 'manmade' carbon emissions and climate change is destroyed by one simple figure........0.5%. I suggest you find a new hobby.
Never said you did. I am on a mission to spread the truth. I do this by posting a lot of comments about things I have researched and believe in. I wanted to spread the word that Christy maintained his position. You want mindless, repetitive spam. Why don't you type in "Palin" and see all the visceral crap posted about her. I'm trying to undo the damage of the far left. I would implore you to let me continue if you value your freedom.
@Gracelandification - =I do this by posting a lot of comments about things I have researched and believe in.= In other words, you spam. I understand that you are on some kind of evangelical mission to "spread the truth" about things you "believe in", but please read the guidelines on my channel description. You are welcome to engage in an intelligent discussion on my fora putting whatever position you like, but make it relevant by finding out what the video is about first.
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
1) What politicians do or don't believe is irrelevant.
2) Christy or any scientists simple opinion isn't really relevant in a scientific debate, studies and peer reviewed papers are generally what matter. Christy saying "I don't think AGW is significant" in one way or another isn't any more meaningful than a practicing climate scientist saying "snow will be a thing of the past"
POTholder54 is awesome i wish all media in the states would take a q from you. Your concise, and you show any posable objections, and than rebutt them. and i haven't seen any time in witch you hid any information.... that tells me that you concern is for the truth.... TY
discovery channel had videos showing scientists predict iceage coming within 20-30 yrs back in 1990s that is when I saw it. then more reported saying Meditteranean sea's salt level was highest ever, a sign of ice-age coming. do you think discovery channel also bullshiting?
Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
@busybuzzbuzz "next week Potholer54 will explain in great detail how 2 plus 2 equals 5" -- I put the same challenge to you as I do to all posters who claim there is an error in the video: Point out what the error is, and where it occurs. Try to find a single mistake and tell us what it is. I will happily correct it. Mouthing off like this and yet not being able to find any mistakes shows the bankruptcy of your beliefs.
@potholer54 A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':
Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)
Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
@potholer54 Dude you are a hero and a legend. I am an engineer, so I can understand science, but I'm not an expert on it. Your succinct and science based explanations have helped me reinforce the belief that this problem is real. I was rather puzzled after watching the hit English comedy The Great Global Warming Swindle, but your videos reassured me.
the atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes, such as the emission of carbon dioxide, or even the production of 'greenhouse gases' (GHGs). Moreover, climatology is not a real science, not yet a discipline that has succeeded in understanding the core of its subject the way other sciences have.
and next week Potholer54 explains in great detail how 2 plus 2 equals 5 - stay tuned folks
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a conservative, corporate political project ,or better, a class project, to expand Capital accumulation in the form of US built Nuclear Power Plants and to create a 10 trillion dollar global derivatve energy credit trading market. This video is Official science not real science.
Yes, the Earth was supposed to be heading for a new ice-age now, like it does in loooong cycles,because of the tilting of it'd rotational axis, but instead it's warming up..so something else must be at work here...COULD it be the man--induced global warming such a totally overwhelming majority of climate experts are agreeing on as being the cause? Yes, it very, very most probably is, and if nothing is done, we're fried/boiled/extinct almost in not too long. So Penn, your huge SUV IS a problem: )
Even if it were true that in the 1970's a large majority of scientists thought that the trend was towards global cooling, that doesn't change the fact that today the large majority supports global warming. In the 1500's scientists thought the sun revolved around the Earth and that God created man in his image. Good luck finding scientists who agree with either of those premises today. Scientific opinions change with supporting data. People don't want to change their beliefs, so they grasp.
You are doing a good job, potholer54, but don't converse with those uneducated. Trying to communicate with the unintelligent is really wasteful to you and the whole mankind.
Coldest year for over 100 years is 2010. Sea levels at my local beach's have not changed since the Piers and Jettys were built over 100 years ago. ( the water marks can be seen) So no warmer, no sea level rise.
@kaderoder So, are you arguing that we AREN'T experiencing a La Niña event? Because if you are, you can look at the thermal satellite images for yourself. Several reputable sources have reported this, and there is absolutely no reason to lie about it. Now, are you simply being childish, and thinking it's cool and hip to deny mainstream science, because it's "mainstream?" Newsflash, this isn't music: you can't just turn your nose up at something because its part of the majority.
@kaderoder That information is according to Sean Hannity, a hyper partisan media personality. According to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, "For January-August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 58.5 F (14.7 C) tied with 1998 as the warmest January-August period on record. This value is 1.21 F (0.67 C) above the 20th century average." These are the latest globally averaged land and water temp available.
Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that with ENTIRE WORLD CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, which are NOT disputed, what kind of fool could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount?
This guy loves to present himself as an objective scientist but he's just a paid shill for the climate change camp. Like Al Gore. The impending Ice Age was just as fake as the current "climate change" scam.
Climate scientists like everybody else seek to improve their financial situation.
And the gravy-train of grants from governments, universities, etc. is global warming.
There is no general consensus about the truth of global warming.
Can you prove that he is a "paid shill" and that global warming is somehow a "gravy train"? Or are you just throwing out ad hominem attacks?
BTW if "everyone" seeks to improve their financial situations should that not also apply to climate change deniers? Are you a "paid shill" for the oil companies?
""The impending Ice Age was just as fake as the current "climate change" scam."
-
You're right the impending Ice Age was fake, made up by current Climate deniers like yourself pretending there was one. Didn't you watch the video you're commenting on?
If you say "scientific consensus" one more time, i'm gonna vomit... you're a liar, you don't understand the basic principles of science and your video is full of spin...
Super Volcanic Eruptions (SVE) cause Ice Ages. SVE is in building now to detonate soon. During 2010 so far 25 Major Earthquakes on a Planet Killer Super Volcano under the Pacific Ocean! See the NASA evidence at > UltraSuperVolcano com
@GottaSaveTheWorld From your web page "I have invented many new inventions such as engines, and energy generators that are powered by the Earth’s gravity."- this does not inspire a lot of confidence, sorry!
love your video's potholder! your probly the most rational human being on youtube, You back up everything you say and are as explicitly honest as possible and the same 200 or so idiots downvote all your stuff.
I started watching your series hoping for a neutral voice of reason. However, the rather simplistic assumption of CO2 acting as the primary positive feedback to get out of an iceage, and the one-sidedness of this video (when I read the title I expected you to go after myths on both sides, not to harp on one myth on the skeptical side), and it looks to me like you aren't actually the voice of neutrality you claim to be.
@JeffGraw -- I am willing to go after any misrepresentation of science. If there is a myth I haven't yet covered, please post it here. I'd love to debunk it. Unfortunately the hypothesis that the ice age ended due to changes in the earth's orbit, and was amplified by the release of CO2 is not a myth, it's in the scientific literature and is supported by evidence. If it's wrong, please cite a paper that shows it to be wrong. It's as simple as that.
@potholer54 -- In terms of misrepresentations, there are the hurricanes obviously, and there is also the hockey stick, the water-world scenarios, and a basically everything under the sun (have you seen the 'warmlist'?) As far as ice age feedbacks, everyone agrees that CO2 release/absorption is a feedback, the point of contention is of course how strong that feedback is. I think most scientists would agree albedo change a bigger feedback for example.
@JeffGraw -- I already have a video in the works on the hurricanes and the water-world scenarios (I have already debunked Al Gore's 20-foot sea level rise and the drowning of Florida in a previous video). The hockey stick will be included in a video about the MWP. The first thing I do with a myth is to see how widely believed it is, so it has to register at least a page or two on Google. E.g., the Pacific islands being drowned or the Greenland ice cap growing. Strawmen myths don’t count.
I'm one of the few on the Left that is speaking out against it. If you want to read about Al Gore's Cozy relationship with Nuclear read article at bottom. This is why I have trouble with Potholer54. He applies no Political/Economic analysis to things. Al Gore is in bed with Nuclear, Potholer citicizes Al Gore's tenuous science, yet still supportys AGW. Isn't that clever? Amazing how intelligent some of thee people are.
@busybuzzbuzz and exactly what is wrong with Nuclear ? before you answer, look in to & compare the actual data on pollution and radiation from the coal, gas, and oli industries compared to nuclear. Also look at the accident mortality rates in those industries compared to nuclear. Also then study the next generation nuclear technologies like LFTR (search the phrase "energy from thorium" ) is a good start. Then look at the economic problems of Spain on the reality of solar/wind to start
assuming there are "two sides." This is mostly Post Modernist relativity. It could be this it coud be that, who's to say, it's up it's down. It's a way of avoiding a structuralist interpretation.
AGW is a conservative corporate agenda to bring back Nuclear Power Plants of which the US has most of the licenses to build throughout the world . Big Oil is also behind it so it can raise prices. Not to mention Al Gore's 10 trillion dollar global derivatives market.
Oh,shit! And recently Japan HAS had a tsunami! @potholer54 is phsycic! (not that Mean any disrespect to the victims)
cartmanisafatninja 3 weeks ago
@cartmanisafatninja Interesting spelling.
Bot23 5 days ago
@Bot23 its not my strongsuit. :P
cartmanisafatninja 4 days ago
The reason we're so susceptible to disaster via environmental stress, is the shortness of a human lifetime (or shortness of memory). I can assure you that the concern of the 1970s was melting polar icecaps and rising sea-levels, and NOT the return of an ice age.
bobinhk1 1 month ago
Thanks to the maker/s of a great trio of videos. Very informative
23peacefrog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
climategate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
MrTranscend1 1 month ago
A kind of scary coincidence in this video is right at the end, you mention a tsunami hitting Japan, and that happened almost exactly one year later. Spooky.
Hippieboy1547 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hippieboy1547 "A kind of scary coincidence in this video is right at the end, you mention a tsunami hitting Japan, and that happened almost exactly one year later. Spooky.". No disrespect, but we should really all be aware of what the prior prognosis on a disaster hitting Japan would be on the world economy, made even before this event. "Spooky" is not quite the right response. Not sure our media are putting everything in the correct context.
bobinhk1 3 weeks ago
The more I watch your videos, the more I'm frustrated with the media.
mirex951 3 months ago
Most who deny the global warming crisis are also religious.
What a coincidence.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Just like Penn Jillette? Al Gore is a Christian.
Generalizations don't help anybody. Take a leaf out of this video series and don't get sucked into name-calling and labeling.
ComicPenius 3 months ago
@ComicPenius Are you responding to someone else's comment?
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 No, I'm criticizing you for labeling all opponents as religious. It's a generalization that's not helpful.
ComicPenius 3 months ago
@ComicPenius I said most, not all.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Penn Jillete. The only skeptic who isnt skeptical at all.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk He is...just not enough about the right stuff. He's done a lot to show up illusionists and whatnot, and also argue for atheism. He's not perfect.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi He really isnt. Maybe about one or two things, but for crying out loud, he denied that passive smooking could have ANY effects on people. And he compleatly denides that increase carbon levels have anything to do with the warming going on.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Passive smoking, oyu mean second hand smoke? I don't know the science, but from personal experience I can say growing up in a household of smokers hasn't done anything to me. But yeah, I already know he has problems with global warming, and he's wrong about that...but again, nobody's perfect.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi If you are skeptic, you dont have a problem with global warming. And the reason he has a problem with it (which is even stated in their own bullshit series) is because magazines like "time magazine" have said scientificly incorrect things.
Second hand smoke does indeed harm. THe gass that comes from the sigarette itself isnt exactly clean air.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Yes, but what's the extent of the harm? It causes people nearby to cough? You're not getting NEAR the concentration that the smoker is...so I doubt the harm is anywhere near what anyone who smokes gets, for one.
And for two, again, nobody is perfect, including Penn Jilette. Nobody is perfect at skeptical thinking. Everyone buys into something wrong at some point.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Yeah, sure. But i have to say, you are not much of a skeptic when you buys into ""global warming is a hoax"" conspiracies.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Well it's not all just a "it's a conspiracy" stuff when it comes to people who don't accept global warming. some of them just genuinely don't think the science supports it, don't feel the scientific consensus agrees with it, and feel 'real science' is disproving it regularly. Not that it's a hoax, just that it's only believed by a few silly people.
They're stil WRONG, but it's akin to the view people have of creationists.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi """some of them just genuinely don't think the science supports it, don't feel the scientific consensus agrees with it, and feel 'real science' is disproving it regularly"" Ok, but science isnt about feeling. Science is about evidence. Disagreeing on evidence is the definition of anti-skeptecism.
gulbirk 3 months ago
Warming bodies experiencing convection accelerates flow rates withing them. Most of the earths heat is in the first fifteen thousand feet of earths atmosphere. Warming will accelerate the removal of heat from this fifteen thousand foot region. It does not happen at once. It happens over years. Watch for rapidly increasing snowfall above the Arctic Circle.
vladdrac88 4 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@Joshuanorris1980 That debunking from the other side - a great idea! Why don't you debunk it from the other OTHER side and see if your findings match potholer54's - and make a YouTube video. Then you'll really gain some credibility. Asking someone who's already done some great work to do more work, when you've done nothing but type a YouTube response, doesn't give you much credibility.
JohnnyHands 4 months ago
Check out the "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warning" - (YouTube won't let me post the URL)
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
JohnnyHands 4 months ago
potholer54, you're just awesome. Videos after videos, they're amazing. You truly investigate deeply into all the claims you work on.
ZirthDrince 5 months ago
Awesome info man. Thanks. All you're series is invaluable for the non-specialist viewer.
MauroRincon 5 months ago
At least penn & teller said at that time they didn't know,
shadowmax889 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Volcanos and meteors can have a significant effect on climate. No one claims to predict volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes. Therefore no one can predict future climate. (If the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupted, things might get cool very quickly.)
Let me know if anyone can find a flaw in this reasoning.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : VERY EASY: HERE IS THE FLAW : volcanic activity unlike industrial driven CO2 emissions does not have a long term increase. Over the long term, CO2 from fossil fuels dwarfs the effect of volcanic activity. In addition to that, pre-industrial levels of CO2 are already the result of natural sinks and sources of CO2. The natural sources of CO2 are volcanoes. What do we learn from the last 400,000 years? CO2 concentrations have been between 200-280ppm (now it's almost 400ppm)
nigelelsass 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@nigelelsass - I was talking about dust in the atmosphere from volcanos, not CO2. Or a large meteor strike that puts a lot of dust in the air (or worse, wipes out most life).
The Tambora, Krakatoa, and Mt. Pinatubo volcanos are well documented. The Tunguska meteor strike is well documented. Volcanos and meteor strikes can't be predicted, so future climate can't be predicted. It is that simple.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Well... ultimately the dust of volcanoes (including sulfur) gets washed away in a 10-year span; and like I explained - there is no global increase in average volcanic output and activity.
It is therefore very certain that in the course of the next decades global warming is the driver.
You cannot predict you will still be alive tomorrow - yet there is a 99.9% chance and you act accordingly - yet on climate you decide to act with the 0.1% probability !!!
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : I agree that you cannot predict with 100% certainty ANYTHING - but we all act on the best probability - and this has worked in engineering, marketing, etc... anything else is being dellusional.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass - well "best probability" is sort of the crux of the entire argument. The probabilities of volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes are unknown. The best estimates are no better than random. Global warming (and mankind being bad) depends on about a dozen assumptions. Even at 95% confidence for all of them, you still end up about 50-50 when you multiply them. Destroying our economy on a coin flip doesn't resonate with me.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Exactly the same argument holds for you being dead tomorrow: the FUTURE is unknown - a good approximation for the probability however exists. This range of uncertainties is given and choices are proposed accordingly. You try to negate this statistical estimate.
PS: Did the -30% emissions destroy the German or Swedish economy? Last I knew they were doing much better than the US - your argument doesn't hold.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Once again, the probability of meteor and volcano eruptions are NOT COMPLETELY UNKNOWN... there is an extremely high probability that their long term average activity will be similar to the preceding 100,000 years.
Long story short, the chances that without action we do not end at 1000ppm concentrations are nearly zero. The chances that this tripled concentration would not yield a warming of at least 4°C are extremely low.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : And all recent estimates put sea level rise between 0.9 to 1.6m per century - which is already an even more colossal economic destruction than no action.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass - it is very easy adapting to a 2C rise in temperatures over 100 years. Same with sea level. There are winners and losers in climate change. Warm climate brings more winners than losers. AGW could be completely correct and still the downside is minimal. And if the winners are the US, Canada, northern europe and russia; and the losers near the equator, tough noogies.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : What gives industrialized nations the right to have most of the profit and roll over the cost to the most vulnerable nations which are also the lowest contributors to GHG emissions?
Anyway, over 2°C there are almost only losers.
I do not believe that the disappearance of a lot of the Netherlands, large parts of Louisiana, the Maldives, large parts of the Nile delta and Bangladesh is a win.
Have you been to your northen states? granitic soil doesn't become fertile overnight...
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass - It is 102F right now where I live with high humidity. I did a 2 mile trek in 23 minutes. I also lived in Michigan, and froze my a* for three months in the winter. I don't give a s* about Lousiana; or countries near the equator or vulnerable nations that hate the US anyway - let them fry. The US, Russia, Canada, Alaska, northern Europe (civilized nations) can exploit resources and grow more food. Bottom line? I'm not reducing my standard of living no matter what.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : How exactly is the warming driven pinebeattle infestation making "winners" ? how are peat fires in Russia and the melting of their permafrost-built infrastructure making them "winners" ? how would a massive increase is aridity in the Southern US make the US a "winner" ? The lastest estimates for temperatures we are heading toward by the MIT are around 6.5°C (10°F). How would a dramatic increase in 100F+ days make the US a winner?
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Limiting the warming to 2°C would require a level of efforts you oppose. We already have 2-3°C "in the pipeline"; we can solely limit the damage and avoid a larger warming by taking action now. Whatever we will do we will exceed the level where cost surpasses by far the cost of action. Almost any lack of action now is economically sub-optimal, especially given the cheap cost of GHG abatement compared to very negative impacts expected from warming.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Anyway - all sorts of micro-conflicts in the future resulting from the warming will at least partly at the cost of the US. National security and warming are already quite well discussed in the Pentagon.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass - you are a smart person and obviously well read on the subject. And AGW could be correct for all the wrong reasons. You can get a true conclusion from false premises, and even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. The bottom line is that China and India are not going to play ball, so there is no reason for the US to destroy its economy. If tree-huggers got on board for nuclear, everyone would be happy.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : You can wish AGW away as much as you want you will not be able to escape reality as we live in a world where laws of physics apply.
China and India are much smarter as they know they will be able to use the US "precedent" to justify their lack of action (which will obviously work as the US despite its more advanced technology and greater wealth spends less on curbing emissions). History will not be kind to the US - with good reasons.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : I am all for the US going nuclear if they are stupid enough to pay $200 per tonne of CO2 saved while we use measures which cost $2 to $40. I guess it's the price to pay for being a control freak which does not want measures people are not familiar with - and not trusting the market.
If the only measures you want are those recommended by a party you trust - go ahead - I have nothing against it. EVERY nation is free to achieve its climate goal the way it wants.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@oracle2world : I am just baffled at you saying:
- I'm not reducing my standard of living no matter what.... destroying our economy doesn't resonate with me
- and then you advocate nuclear, an emission reduction option MUCH more expensive that plenty of others... with an LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) in the range of $13...$21 ct/kWh from estimates in the last 5 years.
There is no way one fits with the other.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass - relative energy cost estimates tend to be flakey. Depends on the country, natural resources nearby, hassle of licensing, construction costs, who is doing the estimate, etc. But I digress. I said nuclear would keep everyone happy. 24 x 7 x 365 reliable power, jobs in the US that can't be done by illegal immigrants, no CO2 emissions (if that matters to you), labor unions happy. "Alternative" energy is a joke.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world : Once again - go for it - I can only see it as a "hobby" as there is no economic rationale for it - and ALL studies of the last 4 years find nuclear to be one of the most expensive types of generation (more costly than wind).
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@oracle2world : If alternative energy is a joke, a joke was able to power at peak 50% of the spanish economy.... and regulary account for 16%.... yeah a joke. Also islands are power by hybrid joke-diesel solutions.
Around 60% of the pipeline for new generation in the US is also a "joke"...
nigelelsass 5 months ago
boo hooo, no one cares about global warming, people care about having jobs and not green jobs being a guy manning some windmill in kansas. I used to work for the government and global warming/climate change is the biggest money racket of all time. Every project is proposed with an environmental twist claiming to be for the environment. Meanwhile, all the climateers are the stingiest people on the planet always bellyaching about how they deserve more money...they dont care as long as u pay...
packerfan748 7 months ago
@packerfan748 You are so ignorant.
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 its true
packerfan748 6 months ago
@packerfan748 I always here the same shit over and over, it can create jobs, it's just that right winged propoganda has made people not trust scientists or green technology. By the way, who did you work with? Republicans?
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 but its good shit, green technology isn't that great.......
packerfan748 6 months ago
@packerfan748 What? Green technology is cleaner and more cost effiecent, what could get better than that?
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 : The number of green jobs already created in Germany is around 400,000 for a populaltion of 80 million. Just the equivalent at the size of the US would be 1.6 million... not even counting this is only the beginning and we have to scale up the effort.
Americans really run the risks of becoming slaves of oil producing nations.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass You sir are exactly right.
We are basically the bitch of oil nations.
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
Comment removed
packerfan748 7 months ago
Did you knowi n 2008, Penn admitted that anthropegic global warming is for real?
AdmiralCasey18 7 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 Prove it.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Prove what? I was just saying Penn excepts Global Warming. Also it's real, get over it.
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 Ha ha your failing to prove it is only surpassed by your "also it's real get over it." Ok freak I don't know what I'm going to do now, I guess I'll join you in green anxiety therapy.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
Do the people quoting TIME Magazine know about the 1973 movie Soylent Green? It's set in the year 2022 and predicts a warmer climate, to the point where those who can afford it turn on the air condition and reminisce about the time when winters used to be cold.
banestyrelsen 7 months ago
I think you're all talking subjective garbage. Enough with the bullshit - display conclusions reached by proper scientific method, demonstrate your working, and stop trying to scare us. What kind of fool would deliberately manufacture information? A fool who cares more about money, influence and his own agenda than his fellow human beings, and it works both ways. And stop patronising us by taking us for idiots. Some of us aren't, and are sick of being lied to.
Alex462047 7 months ago
Guess what? Global warming caused by man is bullshit. The peer reviewed mantra is also bullshit.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 According to who, a libertarian snake like you?
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 More sarcastic propaganda from the global warming religious cult.
david222444 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 Calling names does not win a debate. Oh I forgot the debate is over. Well we will see about that. The Global cooling continues as The Sun enters a Grand Minimum.
david222444 6 months ago
@david22244 Who said the debate is over? Also, how is it a religion? Where did you hear about the earth cooling?
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@AdmiralCasey18 Everything about Global warming suggests a religious like cult. The term denialist suggests that there is a proven fact being ignored, it is like denying Christ or a holocaust denier. The freethinking scientific skeptic is degraded like some unbelieving heathen. A good example is the above video. If you are interested in the fact that the Planet is cooling just search the topic. A good start would be layman's sunspot count.
david222444 6 months ago
@david222444 You that didn't answer my question, how is it like a religion? And climate change is just that. There is lots of evidence suggesting warming, but not cooling. Can you give me an article on who Layman is?
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@david2244 It's the same tactic being used by CAGW-advocates that has been adopted throughout the ages to stifle dissent. What I find most interesting about CAGW is that it mirrors the scam adopted by the Church in the middle-ages when they sold people papal-indulgences to absolve for their sins to escape eternal damnation. The same thing is being done with global warming today. CO2 is now the sin and people are paying exorbinate amounts of money to escape a fast-approaching ecological doomsday.
CHIPSTERO7 6 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Agreed. The global warming scam is very like a religious cult.
david222444 6 months ago
@david222444 Strawman!
AdmiralCasey18 6 months ago
@Joshuanorris1980 So if he had a video about gravity you would ask him to place himself in the skeptic shoes and try to disprove gravity. You understand what science is, or even journalism? I think it is important always have the best information and if you can eliminate the confusion great, but don't expect ever side to have equal claim to the truth, or what is most likely true. There is often a wrong side, and a right side.
thesparitan 7 months ago
@Joshuanorris1980 The whole point of this series is to debunk laymen misconceptions about the actual science, not to prove anything, unless you want proof that the news media generally gets it wrong when it comes to subjects that are nuanced and require critical thought. It sucks that the clearing up misconceptions seems bias to you, but that doesn't change the evidence he's provided in his videos, especially this one, because the physical world doesn't work on perceived biases.
SinistralEpoch 7 months ago
I finally got round to watching this. It is quite.excellent. The only kind of debunking that's worth doing is the thorough kind. I look forward to watching the other videos in this series.
sathearn 8 months ago
"Judging from the record... next ice age... 20 000 years from now."
HAHA! xD
Brilliant!
SirGoP2 8 months ago
Good call on the Japanese tsunami.
PropellerHeadCase 8 months ago
@PropellerHeadCase LSHMSFOAIDMT (lol^9^9)
LAZARW0LF 8 months ago
What I don't get is this:
If 95% of scientists agree on climate change is happening and 5% says it is not or are unsure, why would anyone act as if the 5% were right on a crucial issue like this?
To me it's the equivalent of driving a bus and 19 ppl shout "Look out!" and one guys says "Keep driving." And listening to the one guy.
And EVEN if climate change wasn't happening, there is still proof that rising CO2 levels causes acidification of the sea that can change its ecosystems completely
Hopefulfilment 8 months ago
@Hopefulfilment : Hey, the grandpa of my wife listened to those who told him not to worry and continue smoking ... some of the very same people - for ex. Frederick Seitz. Meanwhile, he has lung cancer...
nigelelsass 8 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Call me mainstream, but I'm going to take the viewpoint of the IPCC over some YouTube randoms.
AnnoyingingeXD 8 months ago
Potholer ... I love your videos, and I agree with your premise, but has anyone done a study on the possibility of publication bias in the climate literature?
Publication bias leads to the publication of studies that report positive results. It's not a matter of personal bias, but rather, statistical bias in favor of studies that reject the null hypothesis (in this case, the null being that man-made gases have no effect on climate).
Lojikbom 10 months ago
also google up the solar flares weve had recently and dabated issues on that the solar cool spots and flares are in some what conjuction with warming and dabate cooling also lord monckton outta context expoiltation
iandaskater 10 months ago
i watch alot of both sides and some new info from other side debunk sites one being a site of journalist and scitentist alike had reports on radiation mathmatic converts and with total rise in tempeture being 3/4 of a degree we had 3/4 of rad emits from sun also the part on axis the japan earth might have changed that
iandaskater 10 months ago
wasnt one of the epa main scientist on the warming levels due to man made co2s casuing climate change behind the theroys of the 70s ice age and now lowering water levels if found some equal unbyasit reports from a journalist team to debunk a bit of last video i do watch wit open minded but this are pretty byiast theres showable date from other sorces not mentioned and some of most recent are not all that i would like to see what you can bring up on this axis change to climate change
iandaskater 10 months ago
7:14 "or a Tsunami is about to devastate the coast of Japan"
Are you a wizard?
MyTomServo 10 months ago
@MyTomServo tsunamis have happened before in japan
Kaasflipje2 9 months ago
@Joshuanorris1980 =debunk it from the other side.= Please watch the whole series. You'll find debunks of Al Gore's movie, BBC reports about the inundation of Pacific atolls, Reuters reports about sea level rise threatening a community, reports about global warming causing a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and more hurricanes.... I've also asked people to send me any other misinformation that needs debunking. I look forward to getting a message from you telling me what I've missed.
potholer54 10 months ago
@Joshuanorris1980 Well, tbh, I did. That was the first time someone had shook me and asked me to give proper attention to the issue. I was convinced that Kilimanjaro and Extinction and everything else were all caused by AGW. Now I know a little bit more, but I'm still convinced that this issue is one which demands immediate attention.
TheStigsIndianCousin 10 months ago
Ah, the venerable scientific journals, Time, Newsweek, and The Wall Street Journal.
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
The main issue is that one of the main guys saying "cooling" was Hansen. He has been the squeaky box so that is why this story has gotten so much attention. Assuming what you say here is correct, what this shows is the power of elite media narratives.
And to answer your final question, perhaps the same kind of guys at CRU.
TalkerOne 11 months ago
The main issue is that one of the main guys saying "cooling" was Hansen. He has been the squeaky box so that is why this story has gotten so much attention.
TalkerOne 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
Penn doesn't understand that nature could care less about human monetary systems, or even human existence. You can't bribe the atmosphere to stop warming to meet Washington's budget constraints. The climate only understands physics and we are not owed forgiveness for our mistakes, small or large.
Antithropocentric 11 months ago
Right-wing intellect. The anatomy of a myth.
These people just keep repeating the same canards over and over, expecting that enough dupes will keep listening. For example, that "ice age" thing was mostly about a 1974 article in TIME magazine, not some mass consensus that flip-flopped.
It was a speculative story, but right-wingers would rather fixate on the past (when it suits their anti-regulation agenda) and never move forward mentally. They're still stuck on that Genesis fable, for instance.
Antithropocentric 11 months ago
HA! 'Where did Time magazine get the idea that another ice age was coming (in the 1970's)? ' The same place Time magazine got the idea that the planet is COOKING now you conceited twit; From vested interest. Sorry, but the connection between 'manmade' carbon emissions and climate change is destroyed by one simple figure........0.5%. I suggest you find a new hobby.
timeweston 1 year ago
@timeweston Wow the 0.5% argument, amazing logical retort.
What are moron you are
thesparitan 10 months ago
@potholer54
.
Never said you did. I am on a mission to spread the truth. I do this by posting a lot of comments about things I have researched and believe in. I wanted to spread the word that Christy maintained his position. You want mindless, repetitive spam. Why don't you type in "Palin" and see all the visceral crap posted about her. I'm trying to undo the damage of the far left. I would implore you to let me continue if you value your freedom.
Gracelandification 1 year ago
@Gracelandification - =I do this by posting a lot of comments about things I have researched and believe in.= In other words, you spam. I understand that you are on some kind of evangelical mission to "spread the truth" about things you "believe in", but please read the guidelines on my channel description. You are welcome to engage in an intelligent discussion on my fora putting whatever position you like, but make it relevant by finding out what the video is about first.
potholer54 1 year ago
2/2 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
Gracelandification 1 year ago
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
.
Allen West 2012
Gracelandification 1 year ago
@Gracelandification
1) What politicians do or don't believe is irrelevant.
2) Christy or any scientists simple opinion isn't really relevant in a scientific debate, studies and peer reviewed papers are generally what matter. Christy saying "I don't think AGW is significant" in one way or another isn't any more meaningful than a practicing climate scientist saying "snow will be a thing of the past"
garith21 1 year ago
POTholder54 is awesome i wish all media in the states would take a q from you. Your concise, and you show any posable objections, and than rebutt them. and i haven't seen any time in witch you hid any information.... that tells me that you concern is for the truth.... TY
isrealjason 1 year ago
discovery channel had videos showing scientists predict iceage coming within 20-30 yrs back in 1990s that is when I saw it. then more reported saying Meditteranean sea's salt level was highest ever, a sign of ice-age coming. do you think discovery channel also bullshiting?
MsUoykcuf 1 year ago
@MsUoykcuf Yes discovery channel is a peer journal, so we can just be lazy and take our science from a ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL
Please try and think before you write
thesparitan 10 months ago
Add to this scientists who have reversed their originally pro-'global-warming' views, such as:
Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)
Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)
SORRY, I COULDN'T FIT THEM ALL IN ONE COMMENT SPACE
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)
Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)
Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)
Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)
Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair of the Scientific council of the Warsaw Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, CLOR)
Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)
Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)
Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair of the Scientific council of the Warsaw Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, CLOR)
Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@busybuzzbuzz "next week Potholer54 will explain in great detail how 2 plus 2 equals 5" -- I put the same challenge to you as I do to all posters who claim there is an error in the video: Point out what the error is, and where it occurs. Try to find a single mistake and tell us what it is. I will happily correct it. Mouthing off like this and yet not being able to find any mistakes shows the bankruptcy of your beliefs.
potholer54 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@potholer54 A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':
Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)
Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
CONTINUED ABOVE
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@potholer54 Again you show the credibility of an honest man, and the wit on an intellect. I salute you.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
@potholer54 Dude you are a hero and a legend. I am an engineer, so I can understand science, but I'm not an expert on it. Your succinct and science based explanations have helped me reinforce the belief that this problem is real. I was rather puzzled after watching the hit English comedy The Great Global Warming Swindle, but your videos reassured me.
Thanks
TheStigsIndianCousin 1 year ago
the atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes, such as the emission of carbon dioxide, or even the production of 'greenhouse gases' (GHGs). Moreover, climatology is not a real science, not yet a discipline that has succeeded in understanding the core of its subject the way other sciences have.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and next week Potholer54 explains in great detail how 2 plus 2 equals 5 - stay tuned folks
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a conservative, corporate political project ,or better, a class project, to expand Capital accumulation in the form of US built Nuclear Power Plants and to create a 10 trillion dollar global derivatve energy credit trading market. This video is Official science not real science.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Yes, the Earth was supposed to be heading for a new ice-age now, like it does in loooong cycles,because of the tilting of it'd rotational axis, but instead it's warming up..so something else must be at work here...COULD it be the man--induced global warming such a totally overwhelming majority of climate experts are agreeing on as being the cause? Yes, it very, very most probably is, and if nothing is done, we're fried/boiled/extinct almost in not too long. So Penn, your huge SUV IS a problem: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar *it's* : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
I don't like Penn Jillette at all, and this once more confirms why.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Even if it were true that in the 1970's a large majority of scientists thought that the trend was towards global cooling, that doesn't change the fact that today the large majority supports global warming. In the 1500's scientists thought the sun revolved around the Earth and that God created man in his image. Good luck finding scientists who agree with either of those premises today. Scientific opinions change with supporting data. People don't want to change their beliefs, so they grasp.
Salsashark516 1 year ago
Great video! Subscribed!
Edbrad 1 year ago
You are doing a good job, potholer54, but don't converse with those uneducated. Trying to communicate with the unintelligent is really wasteful to you and the whole mankind.
BangkokSpark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Existent Be Naughty dating benaughtyman.info
helikanamali 1 year ago
Coldest year for over 100 years is 2010. Sea levels at my local beach's have not changed since the Piers and Jettys were built over 100 years ago. ( the water marks can be seen) So no warmer, no sea level rise.
The inconvenient truth.
kaderoder 1 year ago
@kaderoder You do realize we're experienced a La Niña event, right? Cooler temperatures are expected.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto You do realize you are swallowing everything you are given. More Naivety is expected.
kaderoder 1 year ago
@kaderoder So, are you arguing that we AREN'T experiencing a La Niña event? Because if you are, you can look at the thermal satellite images for yourself. Several reputable sources have reported this, and there is absolutely no reason to lie about it. Now, are you simply being childish, and thinking it's cool and hip to deny mainstream science, because it's "mainstream?" Newsflash, this isn't music: you can't just turn your nose up at something because its part of the majority.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@kaderoder If the sea level rose, how could you see the (now underwater) older water marks?
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 Thats the point, the water marks havnt changed.
kaderoder 1 year ago
@kaderoder That information is according to Sean Hannity, a hyper partisan media personality. According to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, "For January-August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 58.5 F (14.7 C) tied with 1998 as the warmest January-August period on record. This value is 1.21 F (0.67 C) above the 20th century average." These are the latest globally averaged land and water temp available.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
Carbon Tax proponents climate scientists have found that China's CO2 emissions are not a problem, the US's is.
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
@mdiem go away spammer.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@TempestStormwind They've retracted their 2ndhand smoke claims, sheesh.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@GeneralBolas They've retracted their claims on 2ndhand smoke actually.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that with ENTIRE WORLD CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, which are NOT disputed, what kind of fool could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount?
jimrennison1 1 year ago
Scratch a climate change denier you will find an oil shill or sadly a Libertarian.
CityzenJane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hope Will and Inhofe die of skin cancer...and brain-herpes.
SteveAndIdiAmin 1 year ago
I hope Will in Inhofe die of skin cancer...and brain-herpes.
SteveAndIdiAmin 1 year ago
This guy loves to present himself as an objective scientist but he's just a paid shill for the climate change camp. Like Al Gore. The impending Ice Age was just as fake as the current "climate change" scam.
Climate scientists like everybody else seek to improve their financial situation.
And the gravy-train of grants from governments, universities, etc. is global warming.
There is no general consensus about the truth of global warming.
But there is a consensus that it sells.
Txsray 1 year ago
@Txsray
Can you prove that he is a "paid shill" and that global warming is somehow a "gravy train"? Or are you just throwing out ad hominem attacks?
BTW if "everyone" seeks to improve their financial situations should that not also apply to climate change deniers? Are you a "paid shill" for the oil companies?
LordZentei 1 year ago
@Txsray oh thats right the billion dollar oil companies don't pay the sceptical scientists anything!!!
it alot more lucrative to be sceptical of climate change than support climate change
pathfinder756 1 year ago
@Txsray
-
""The impending Ice Age was just as fake as the current "climate change" scam."
-
You're right the impending Ice Age was fake, made up by current Climate deniers like yourself pretending there was one. Didn't you watch the video you're commenting on?
Edbrad 1 year ago
If you say "scientific consensus" one more time, i'm gonna vomit... you're a liar, you don't understand the basic principles of science and your video is full of spin...
poorly done indeed!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod How is the video spun?
zzyzx0788 1 year ago
really good video, just be careful with the name-calling at the end
keef920 1 year ago
Super Volcanic Eruptions (SVE) cause Ice Ages. SVE is in building now to detonate soon. During 2010 so far 25 Major Earthquakes on a Planet Killer Super Volcano under the Pacific Ocean! See the NASA evidence at > UltraSuperVolcano com
GottaSaveTheWorld 1 year ago
@GottaSaveTheWorld I think I'll stick to being worried about things I can do something about, like CO2-caused climate change!
indulis1 1 year ago
@GottaSaveTheWorld From your web page "I have invented many new inventions such as engines, and energy generators that are powered by the Earth’s gravity."- this does not inspire a lot of confidence, sorry!
indulis1 1 year ago
Your voice sounds like John Pilger.
camreeno360 1 year ago
Has the Atlantic Drift been disrupted by the BP disaster?
All the oil and the dispersant's - have they affected the flow of warm currents?
Is the UK and Europe going to get colder as a result?
Regards
Andy (UK)
Andyhgn53k 1 year ago
@ 6:29
<3 Quote mining. Especially blatant and intentional ones.
flylike1 1 year ago
love your video's potholder! your probly the most rational human being on youtube, You back up everything you say and are as explicitly honest as possible and the same 200 or so idiots downvote all your stuff.
Jovian84 1 year ago
I started watching your series hoping for a neutral voice of reason. However, the rather simplistic assumption of CO2 acting as the primary positive feedback to get out of an iceage, and the one-sidedness of this video (when I read the title I expected you to go after myths on both sides, not to harp on one myth on the skeptical side), and it looks to me like you aren't actually the voice of neutrality you claim to be.
JeffGraw 1 year ago
@JeffGraw -- I am willing to go after any misrepresentation of science. If there is a myth I haven't yet covered, please post it here. I'd love to debunk it. Unfortunately the hypothesis that the ice age ended due to changes in the earth's orbit, and was amplified by the release of CO2 is not a myth, it's in the scientific literature and is supported by evidence. If it's wrong, please cite a paper that shows it to be wrong. It's as simple as that.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 -- In terms of misrepresentations, there are the hurricanes obviously, and there is also the hockey stick, the water-world scenarios, and a basically everything under the sun (have you seen the 'warmlist'?) As far as ice age feedbacks, everyone agrees that CO2 release/absorption is a feedback, the point of contention is of course how strong that feedback is. I think most scientists would agree albedo change a bigger feedback for example.
JeffGraw 1 year ago
@JeffGraw -- I already have a video in the works on the hurricanes and the water-world scenarios (I have already debunked Al Gore's 20-foot sea level rise and the drowning of Florida in a previous video). The hockey stick will be included in a video about the MWP. The first thing I do with a myth is to see how widely believed it is, so it has to register at least a page or two on Google. E.g., the Pacific islands being drowned or the Greenland ice cap growing. Strawmen myths don’t count.
potholer54 1 year ago
@JeffGraw Correction:
I'm one of the few on the Left that is speaking out against it. If you want to read about Al Gore's Cozy relationship with Nuclear read article at bottom. This is why I have trouble with Potholer54. He applies no Political/Economic analysis to things. Al Gore is in bed with Nuclear, Potholer citicizes Al Gore's tenuous science, yet still supportys AGW. Isn't that clever? Amazing how intelligent some of thee people are.
counterpunch . org/nukes . html
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@busybuzzbuzz and exactly what is wrong with Nuclear ? before you answer, look in to & compare the actual data on pollution and radiation from the coal, gas, and oli industries compared to nuclear. Also look at the accident mortality rates in those industries compared to nuclear. Also then study the next generation nuclear technologies like LFTR (search the phrase "energy from thorium" ) is a good start. Then look at the economic problems of Spain on the reality of solar/wind to start
kbs1138 1 year ago
@JeffGraw
assuming there are "two sides." This is mostly Post Modernist relativity. It could be this it coud be that, who's to say, it's up it's down. It's a way of avoiding a structuralist interpretation.
AGW is a conservative corporate agenda to bring back Nuclear Power Plants of which the US has most of the licenses to build throughout the world . Big Oil is also behind it so it can raise prices. Not to mention Al Gore's 10 trillion dollar global derivatives market.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago