Awesome that NCSE is taking on climate change denialism. With so much nonsense in the media and so much public confusion over the topic, it's about time something was done about it. But as with defending evolution, NCSE is going to have a long, hard fight defending climate change science. And this will be a different fight - rather than dealing with skeptics with a religious motive, they will have to deal with oil and natural gas companies distorting scientific data for the sake of profit.
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 Carbon Tax. 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".
I teach science in a bible belt public high school. As of last yr, I was the only teacher that taught AGW properly. Now, we have 5 new teachers who just graduated and are on board. Yeah!! Before they came in, our students were told a bunch of bull by these fundie teachers who shouldn't be in a science classroom. Also, many of them taught kids 'God of the Gaps' bullcrap instead of staying with proper science. If you are a parent of a child in public school in the USA, check on this. Not science.
If her arguments had good foundations, she wouldn't need to resort to these identity politics and personality attacks to defend her points. All she does in this interview is reveal her insecurity in the positions she is advocating.
It is interesting that Dr, Scott brings up climate change as being one of the things the religious right has a problem with. As a sometimes blogger on an ostensibly religious website, I can verify that this is true. What I cannot figure out is why this might be true. And nobody will answer the question. So, I'll ask it here. Why should the religious right have a problem with climate change?
@gypsyhamlet "I disagree with her -- evolution is scientific but environmentalism is the religion for the leftists."
-ism doesn't = a religion. Maybe environmentalism is more of a philosophy, but the climate science is as scientific as you can get. And what the science tells us is that the earth is warming, partly because of humans. Now if you want to do something about it or not is entirely up to you. But you can't throw climate science in the same bag as PETA and call it a religion.
@Meurglys33 Actually, mainstream textbooks on religion, such as "Experiencing the World's Religions" by Molloy ( 2009) treats environmentalism as a religion or rather a "religious phenomena". The correct reply is to point out that climate science has nothing per se to do with environmentalism and equating the two is basically a straw man argument.
Creationism is annoying and dangerous. The fossil record, radiometric dating (where I did my thesis), layer upon layer of ancient rock, everything is against it. I fight it in the classroom. However, the link she is drawing with man made climate change is a bit of a problem. The troposphere is not heating up (Cristy, Spencer). Sea level in the Maldives is going down (Merner). It doesn't really matter. Worldwide peaking of oil production will give us a much bigger problem to worry about.
The difference between the climate change debate and evolution, is that you don't have politicians asking for money when it comes to evolution. But when you have politicians like Gore asking for Carbon credits... money, I'm going to be skeptical.
@BlueRonin44 Not to mention that he and his followers push the notion of "the science is settled" without actual large scale debate against the skeptics, which makes me quite skeptical of his credibility.
@taylort123 ; The science of global climate change is settled. It's an observed fact, and the mechanisms involved are understood. There is no more debate on the issue among scientists: the last skeptics ceased being skeptics over a decade ago. You'll just have to adjust.
@Desertphile Oh yeah? So the influx of 30,000 scientists still demanding a debate is basis of this "settling of science?" Oh please. There's never been any any actual debate. At least, there's never been an offer of debate from the leaders of the pro glo- I mean climate change movement. There's only been people buying into one side or the other.
@taylort123 The Oregon Petition is bullshit. The "30,000" scientists includes a large percentage of people who didn't sign it, don't agree with it, aren't scientists, or apparently don't even exist (ie, the name is simply a single word, without any indication of who it actually is). It's on the same level as the "1000 scientists who question evolution" list that the Dishonesty Institute put out a few years ago- good only for fooling gullible nonscientists.
@taylort123 ; Huh? The debate ended over a decade ago, silly. The world's entire scientific community agrees global warming was caused by humans. Try to keep up.
@taylort123 "large scale debate" on a scientific issue is also known as the peer-reviewed literature. Because science isn't actually decided by debate - it's decided by debate plus empirical evidence plus fact checking. That is accomplished by, essentially, expert referees (journal editors and peer reviewers), not by large uninformed crowds.
There's hardly no "actual large scale debate against the skeptics" - that was hashed out in the literature ages ago.
@BlueRonin44 ; Yep, by golly, you're the idiot. You asserted that global climate change has something to do with politics, not science; that makes you an idiot. There is no longer any debate about global warming being caused by humans than there is about evolution happening---- scientists reached consensus on both subjects already. If you believe the world's scientists are wrong, write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed article and correct them.
@Desertphile Yeah, I read all you're replies. I see your claims. If that's the case, the it should be easy for you point out one source. I'm sure there's thousands, but I'm asking for just one. One source that is an established, impartial scientific source that is well-established at being subjective with no political affiliation or ties that offers irrefutable proof. Just one.
@BlueRonin44 ; "My claims?" ROTFL! You're so silly! You mean the conclusions of all of the scientists: you know, the French Academy of Science, the American Science Academy, the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA..... all of the independent scientific bodies of the world, and they all agree. If you believe the world's scientists are wrong, write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed article and correct them.
@Desertphile Now I'm not disputing climate change. I'm disputing that man is having a catastrophic impact on the environment. We see climate change on other planets and I'm pretty sure *we* didn't cause that. So yeah. Just one little link. Still waiting.
@BlueRonin44 ; "I'm disputing that man is having a catastrophic impact on the environment."
It's already happened, silly. Hundreds of papers published in dozens of peer-reviewed refereed science journals published the data and explains the observed facts; you have an occult and/or poliical agenda to further, but that's your pathology. Reality stings, ehe?
@Desertphile Hundreds of papers, and not one is on the internet for me to see? Just link one. I'm still waiting. You keep talking and talking, but it's not like I'm asking you to prove God exists. I'm asking for one paper that is objective, shows data that can say the change in the Earth's climate is not natural/caused by man, and is catastrophic- and doesn't ask for my money at the end. I'm not pushing the agenda. You are. I'm asking for proof. That's all.
@Desertphile Now the next think you post in response to me needs to be a link. Anything else is lip service and I consider this debate over and you lost.
@BlueRonin44 ; I will do your work for you for $200. Or you can spend the minute or less in Google Scholar and find everything you could possibly want on the subject, published in refereed peer-reviewed science journals indexed there. But you don't dare do that; you know it will sting.
@Desertphile I've tried, but I've been unsuccessful finding anything on a website that didn't have a political agenda. Thanks for playing. Game. Set. Match.
@BlueRonin44 Wtf? That is a scientific paper database. That is where you look for scientific papers. If you don't understand that then you don't want to learn.
@HAL9000unit Are these all papers that have stood up to peer review? Forgive my ignorance. I want to learn, but I don't want to have my time wasted, either.
@BlueRonin44 That's what a scientific paper is. This is a database of published (and therefore peer reviewed) papers. Type in Drosophila and papers about drosophila come up. Type in Bottle neck and cheetahs and papers about that will come up. This is a tool. Learn how to use them.
It is really sad that our science curriculums don't teach about databases until you are in a college class; these would help dramatically with letting people get useful information.
@HAL9000unit Thanks for the information. I'll read it when I have the time to look them over. I'm also a layman and not a scientist, but I'll give it my best.
@BlueRonin44 Do you consider the American Meteorological Society or the International MS, political bodies? If so, then you might reassess that notion.
From the AMS 2007 AGW statement;
"There is adequate evidence from observation and interpretation of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, oceans and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change..."
Thousands of climate scientists agree. Good thing gov isn't listening to folks like you.
@BlueRonin44 Just go to the AMS site. There is a little hunting involved to find their statement, but they essentially ditto the IPCC Synthesis report of 07. The AMS statement is in effect until 2012(if no new science comes out to refute this position). It will be 4 yrs in Feb since they put this up on their site. The AMS represents one of the biggest professional meteorological groups in the world and they are members of the International MS.
@Desertphile he's an idiot for pointing out a perfectly understandable reason to be skeptic, and you're a complete fucking dumb ass that believes in informal, unchallenged, protected "science" made up by people so confident in their work, they scrutinize and demonize the skeptics, but won't agree to an all out debate.
@taylort123 ; He's an idiot for rejecting all of the evidence. The science behind global climate change was discovered 180 years ago; the debate ended over a decade ago. If you have evidence showing all of the scientists in the world are wrong, step forward and produce it.
If half the US population thinks that jesus will return to earth in the next fifty years then why the hell would they conserve and protect our planet and environment? Conversative, my ass...
People are complaining about one of the most common typos in the English language (it's actually rule one in Strunk & White! THAT common, people!), and ignoring the point of the video. While it might make you feel all smug, it's basically a text form of the ad-hominem fallacy (addressing the messenger in place of the message).
It's so disappointing to see a video by such a esteemed organization as the NCSE with a simple spelling mistake in the first 15 seconds. "It's" is a contraction of it is or it has, NOT the possessive form of "it". In video comments, I wouldn't complain. This is a video that had far more thought and preparation.
I have no problem whatsoever with evolution, origin of life or stem cells. I'll admit that I don't know enough to comment on the science for or against climate change, but the element that concerns me is not the science, but the social and civil liberty ramifications of some of the "solutions" that are proposed. The evolution debate is simply about teaching what science finds; climate change is science with a public policy agenda attached. That's the part that is fishy to me =\
@entyrion Exactly! And that is the 800lb gorilla in the clown suit juggling kittens, knives, and meat cleavers in the room that any of the AGW proponents are discussing, in fact they refuse too and dismiss it as "conspiracy theorist" rhetoric.
I think there is definitely a anthropogenic problem, but I see it in a much larger crisis; pollution, toxic waste, deforestation, and rampant disregard for ecology in general, but when I raise this issue with AGW supporters I am summarily chastised.
@Desertphile You obviously have a brain because you breathe and can type, but that’s probably as good as it gets and as much it can handle without the danger of being taxed.
pro•po•nent
1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.
2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate.
3. a person who supports a cause or doctrine; adherent.
Synonyms: supporter, champion, enthusiast.
As in a person who supports the idea that AGW is fact. Hope this helped you understand
@entyrion I am dismissed and condescendingly explained that "global change" is a much more serious issue and that everything that our "leaders" proclaim is just and true and that I should fall lock step in with all the AGW agendas or else I’m a "kook", a "conspiracy theorist", and or a "denier". My response is I am to trust the same leaders who what, have not demonstrated a single philanthropic or altruistic notion among them for decades?
@mattghtpa Well, if you don't trust the political leaders, why don't you spend some time reading and listening to the scientists who actually work on the problem?
Yes I know about cap and trade, what I want to know is how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy?
@TheSkepticalIdealist Also, if you look carefully, you'll find that not only are the same people who oppose Climate Change also opposed to evolution, they list many of the same reasons for their opposition (well, not cap and trade, but the conspiracy, it's anti-human, just a theory, nobody's actually seen it happen, ect).
@entyrion The same leaders that have murdered and slaughtered over a million Middle Eastern people, that couldn’t even muster enough brain cells to aid Katrina victims, oh, and the same ones that have allowed our economy to collapse and implode, but insist on rewarding the perpetrators of the collapse with obscene amounts of "stimulus"? Those "leaders"? Well I have a label too; I call them "cognitive dissidents", because they have all have their collective heads up their collective asses.
@entyrion The same leaders that are in bed with the corporations that profited and created the ecological crisis on the backs of people that they are now trying to convince that they are the reason for crisis and then once again attempting to position themselves to once again make disgustingly obscene profits from "carbon taxes". Unfreaking believable! But again, I am dismissed when I present this aspect of the AGW issue.
@entyrion No, you can still draw a line between the science (what's happening to the environment, and are human greenhouse gases responsible?) and the public policy proposals on what to do about it. They're two separate things, though of course one way to argue that there shouldn't be a public policy response is to deny the science.
The easiest way to argue against the public policy is to take the Rush L route and deny the science and everything attached to it. That's a pretty cheap path though, I agree. But it is equally cheap for the other side to ignore what a public policy skeptic actually says and brand him or her a "denier" when they are perfectly open to the scientific data, but opposed to dubious special-interest "solutions."
@entyrion ; "limate change is science with a public policy agenda attached. "
That's because of the idiot morons and the politicians who rely on stupid people for their pay. Scientists didn't make global climate change a political issue: they just published the data, and were persecuted for doing so. The fact that morons reject the observed facts based on greed and politics in no way mitigates the fact that humans have caused and are causing climate change.
The real problem is when someone raises their hand to point out some critical flaws in the "solutions" and the response is "Shut up you idiot, this is SCIENCE, these are FACTS! You must be a DENIER!"
The measurement of climate change is science, public policy to fix the problem like cap and trade is not. You talk about "stupid people" and "morons" but as you do so, you run a risk of allowing your emotions to cloud the debate and a more careful analysis of some of these "solutions"
Umm, hello. Didn't any of you such learned people notice that you used the wrong ITS in the sentence starting at 0:12 ? You put in "it's" (the contraction for "it is" instead of "its" (the possessive form) in the sentence "...has been it's Director...".
@tctheunbeliever "Well, anytime a make a comment about somebody who can't spell, I'm called a spelling Nazi, so I don't worry about it anymore."
.
LOL! And you fucked up your spelling HERE, in your comment above. LOL! You put in "a" for "I" in "anytime *a* make a comment". LOL! That's okay, though. I put a lot of the blame on fucking TheirTube for not putting in a way to edit one's comment after you've posted it.
@JixYt That's a typo--if I wasn't typing, I wouldn't have done it. You're easily amused. BTW, you left out the closing parenthesis (that's the singular form of parentheses) after "the contraction for 'it is'".
I definately think so, the misinformation campaign played by claimate deniers is actually more dangerous than creationism, because this misinformation goes beyond just screwing up science education to actually harming the livability of this planet for future generations.
I can't understand why the creationists are also so upset with climate science. I mean, what part of their fundamentalist religious beliefs does it conflict with?
Part of the solution to global warming is nuclear power, and I thought conservatives *liked* nuclear power.
@ApolloWasReal "what part of their fundamentalist religious beliefs does it conflict with?"
I've actually heard people cite Genesis 9:11 - where God promises not to flood the earth again - as proof the sea levels aren't rising, therefore global warming is a conspiracy.
Oh, how I wish I were joking.
There's also the "God gave man dominion over the Earth to do as he pleased" argument and "if the globe's warming, it's God's will" claim.
But mostly, I think, it's a distrust of science in general.
The trouble with popularizing climate change is that one, it's newer, and two, everyone who writes about it is telling you what to do about it, not about the science behind it.
Even if it were wrong why should we not reduce our polluting footprint on our Earth? Do these people think that these types of nonrenewable resources will go on forever...Including our air, soil and water?
Oh look, another conspiracy nut! Let me guess, global warming, like 9/11 is another conspiracy for government control! Oh how could they. If you went one step further, you would have seen that evolution and atheism were in on this conspiracy.
@bofors7715 ; "'Global warming' is a lop-sided fraud."
That's excellent news! Whew! What a relief! I'm sure you will now write a paper on the subject, submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal, and correct all the scientists. Thank you! Oh, thank you!
Awesome that NCSE is taking on climate change denialism. With so much nonsense in the media and so much public confusion over the topic, it's about time something was done about it. But as with defending evolution, NCSE is going to have a long, hard fight defending climate change science. And this will be a different fight - rather than dealing with skeptics with a religious motive, they will have to deal with oil and natural gas companies distorting scientific data for the sake of profit.
ClamCrunchy 1 month ago
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 Carbon Tax. 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 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
If anyone would like to view the AMS statement on AGW, just go to this link on their website.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
I teach science in a bible belt public high school. As of last yr, I was the only teacher that taught AGW properly. Now, we have 5 new teachers who just graduated and are on board. Yeah!! Before they came in, our students were told a bunch of bull by these fundie teachers who shouldn't be in a science classroom. Also, many of them taught kids 'God of the Gaps' bullcrap instead of staying with proper science. If you are a parent of a child in public school in the USA, check on this. Not science.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
I've been a dues paying member of NCSE for years.
Both Genie and Barbra Forrest are personal heroines of mine.
AGNOSSI 1 year ago
If her arguments had good foundations, she wouldn't need to resort to these identity politics and personality attacks to defend her points. All she does in this interview is reveal her insecurity in the positions she is advocating.
bozellandbuckley 1 year ago
Sarah Palin killed a man.
WesternHIllsHigh 1 year ago
It is interesting that Dr, Scott brings up climate change as being one of the things the religious right has a problem with. As a sometimes blogger on an ostensibly religious website, I can verify that this is true. What I cannot figure out is why this might be true. And nobody will answer the question. So, I'll ask it here. Why should the religious right have a problem with climate change?
upsilon054 1 year ago
I disagree with her -- evolution is scientific but environmentalism is the religion for the leftists.
gypsyhamlet 1 year ago
@gypsyhamlet "I disagree with her -- evolution is scientific but environmentalism is the religion for the leftists."
-ism doesn't = a religion. Maybe environmentalism is more of a philosophy, but the climate science is as scientific as you can get. And what the science tells us is that the earth is warming, partly because of humans. Now if you want to do something about it or not is entirely up to you. But you can't throw climate science in the same bag as PETA and call it a religion.
Meurglys33 7 months ago
@Meurglys33 Good reply to a dope
bonnevie9 3 months ago
@Meurglys33 Actually, mainstream textbooks on religion, such as "Experiencing the World's Religions" by Molloy ( 2009) treats environmentalism as a religion or rather a "religious phenomena". The correct reply is to point out that climate science has nothing per se to do with environmentalism and equating the two is basically a straw man argument.
TheEfkk 1 month ago
Creationism is annoying and dangerous. The fossil record, radiometric dating (where I did my thesis), layer upon layer of ancient rock, everything is against it. I fight it in the classroom. However, the link she is drawing with man made climate change is a bit of a problem. The troposphere is not heating up (Cristy, Spencer). Sea level in the Maldives is going down (Merner). It doesn't really matter. Worldwide peaking of oil production will give us a much bigger problem to worry about.
FreesWorld 1 year ago
NCSE and Genie are a national treasure we owe a lot to them and all their hard work
Nibielari 1 year ago 7
Once I have the money, I'll happily pay to be a member. :D
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
In answer to the question, YES we need a climate change NCSE.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Frosti2008 ; "CLIMATE CHANGE IS HOAX."
In the exact same sense gravity is hoax.
Desertphile 1 year ago
The difference between the climate change debate and evolution, is that you don't have politicians asking for money when it comes to evolution. But when you have politicians like Gore asking for Carbon credits... money, I'm going to be skeptical.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 Not to mention that he and his followers push the notion of "the science is settled" without actual large scale debate against the skeptics, which makes me quite skeptical of his credibility.
taylort123 1 year ago
@taylort123 ; The science of global climate change is settled. It's an observed fact, and the mechanisms involved are understood. There is no more debate on the issue among scientists: the last skeptics ceased being skeptics over a decade ago. You'll just have to adjust.
Desertphile 1 year ago 3
@Desertphile Oh yeah? So the influx of 30,000 scientists still demanding a debate is basis of this "settling of science?" Oh please. There's never been any any actual debate. At least, there's never been an offer of debate from the leaders of the pro glo- I mean climate change movement. There's only been people buying into one side or the other.
taylort123 1 year ago
@taylort123 The Oregon Petition is bullshit. The "30,000" scientists includes a large percentage of people who didn't sign it, don't agree with it, aren't scientists, or apparently don't even exist (ie, the name is simply a single word, without any indication of who it actually is). It's on the same level as the "1000 scientists who question evolution" list that the Dishonesty Institute put out a few years ago- good only for fooling gullible nonscientists.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@taylort123 ; Huh? The debate ended over a decade ago, silly. The world's entire scientific community agrees global warming was caused by humans. Try to keep up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@taylort123 "large scale debate" on a scientific issue is also known as the peer-reviewed literature. Because science isn't actually decided by debate - it's decided by debate plus empirical evidence plus fact checking. That is accomplished by, essentially, expert referees (journal editors and peer reviewers), not by large uninformed crowds.
There's hardly no "actual large scale debate against the skeptics" - that was hashed out in the literature ages ago.
watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
TempestStormwind 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; Idiot.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile That'll win me over. Show me science that doesn't ask for my credit card information.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; Huh?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile And I'm the idiot? Work on your ability to comprehend and then you can sit at the big boy table.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; Yep, by golly, you're the idiot. You asserted that global climate change has something to do with politics, not science; that makes you an idiot. There is no longer any debate about global warming being caused by humans than there is about evolution happening---- scientists reached consensus on both subjects already. If you believe the world's scientists are wrong, write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed article and correct them.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Yeah, I read all you're replies. I see your claims. If that's the case, the it should be easy for you point out one source. I'm sure there's thousands, but I'm asking for just one. One source that is an established, impartial scientific source that is well-established at being subjective with no political affiliation or ties that offers irrefutable proof. Just one.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; "My claims?" ROTFL! You're so silly! You mean the conclusions of all of the scientists: you know, the French Academy of Science, the American Science Academy, the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA..... all of the independent scientific bodies of the world, and they all agree. If you believe the world's scientists are wrong, write a paper and submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed article and correct them.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Now I'm not disputing climate change. I'm disputing that man is having a catastrophic impact on the environment. We see climate change on other planets and I'm pretty sure *we* didn't cause that. So yeah. Just one little link. Still waiting.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueRonin44 ; "I'm disputing that man is having a catastrophic impact on the environment."
It's already happened, silly. Hundreds of papers published in dozens of peer-reviewed refereed science journals published the data and explains the observed facts; you have an occult and/or poliical agenda to further, but that's your pathology. Reality stings, ehe?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Hundreds of papers, and not one is on the internet for me to see? Just link one. I'm still waiting. You keep talking and talking, but it's not like I'm asking you to prove God exists. I'm asking for one paper that is objective, shows data that can say the change in the Earth's climate is not natural/caused by man, and is catastrophic- and doesn't ask for my money at the end. I'm not pushing the agenda. You are. I'm asking for proof. That's all.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@Desertphile Now the next think you post in response to me needs to be a link. Anything else is lip service and I consider this debate over and you lost.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; I will do your work for you for $200. Or you can spend the minute or less in Google Scholar and find everything you could possibly want on the subject, published in refereed peer-reviewed science journals indexed there. But you don't dare do that; you know it will sting.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile I've tried, but I've been unsuccessful finding anything on a website that didn't have a political agenda. Thanks for playing. Game. Set. Match.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44
scirus[.]com/srsapp/search?q=climate+change&t=all&sort=0&g=s
4,000,000 hits... and that only took a few seconds D:
HAL9000unit 1 year ago
@HAL9000unit You are linking a search engine. I'm asking for one unbiased source. Thanks for trying, though.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 Wtf? That is a scientific paper database. That is where you look for scientific papers. If you don't understand that then you don't want to learn.
HAL9000unit 1 year ago
@HAL9000unit Are these all papers that have stood up to peer review? Forgive my ignorance. I want to learn, but I don't want to have my time wasted, either.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 That's what a scientific paper is. This is a database of published (and therefore peer reviewed) papers. Type in Drosophila and papers about drosophila come up. Type in Bottle neck and cheetahs and papers about that will come up. This is a tool. Learn how to use them.
It is really sad that our science curriculums don't teach about databases until you are in a college class; these would help dramatically with letting people get useful information.
But yes, all are peer reviewed.
HAL9000unit 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 You can also read about them to make sure.
scirus.com/srsapp/aboutus/
HAL9000unit 1 year ago
@HAL9000unit Thanks for the information. I'll read it when I have the time to look them over. I'm also a layman and not a scientist, but I'll give it my best.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 Do you consider the American Meteorological Society or the International MS, political bodies? If so, then you might reassess that notion.
From the AMS 2007 AGW statement;
"There is adequate evidence from observation and interpretation of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, oceans and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change..."
Thousands of climate scientists agree. Good thing gov isn't listening to folks like you.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro Fine. Show me the paper or website. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 Just go to the AMS site. There is a little hunting involved to find their statement, but they essentially ditto the IPCC Synthesis report of 07. The AMS statement is in effect until 2012(if no new science comes out to refute this position). It will be 4 yrs in Feb since they put this up on their site. The AMS represents one of the biggest professional meteorological groups in the world and they are members of the International MS.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@BlueRonin44 ; So, you admit you are too stupid to work Google. Well, that's your problem. I told you I will go the work for you for $200.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile Aw, but I wanted the last word! Fine. Just tell me where to mail the check and who to make it out to.
BlueRonin44 1 year ago
@Desertphile he's an idiot for pointing out a perfectly understandable reason to be skeptic, and you're a complete fucking dumb ass that believes in informal, unchallenged, protected "science" made up by people so confident in their work, they scrutinize and demonize the skeptics, but won't agree to an all out debate.
There, now you are both square.
taylort123 1 year ago
@taylort123 ; He's an idiot for rejecting all of the evidence. The science behind global climate change was discovered 180 years ago; the debate ended over a decade ago. If you have evidence showing all of the scientists in the world are wrong, step forward and produce it.
Desertphile 1 year ago
If half the US population thinks that jesus will return to earth in the next fifty years then why the hell would they conserve and protect our planet and environment? Conversative, my ass...
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88 ; "Conversative, my ass..."
USA conservatives are not conservatives. No where else on the planet would conservatives consider USA conservatives to be conservatives.
Desertphile 1 year ago
People are complaining about one of the most common typos in the English language (it's actually rule one in Strunk & White! THAT common, people!), and ignoring the point of the video. While it might make you feel all smug, it's basically a text form of the ad-hominem fallacy (addressing the messenger in place of the message).
TempestStormwind 1 year ago
It's so disappointing to see a video by such a esteemed organization as the NCSE with a simple spelling mistake in the first 15 seconds. "It's" is a contraction of it is or it has, NOT the possessive form of "it". In video comments, I wouldn't complain. This is a video that had far more thought and preparation.
yegreskin 1 year ago
Science education FTW!
Saukko31 1 year ago
I'd like to have her as a teacher. :)
ScepticalCynic 1 year ago
Dr. Scott looks like everyone's grade school math and science teacher. If it were not for them, I wouldn't be studying biology.
vr00m123 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you're slightly in love Genie for being brilliant and beautiful.
lowcomedy 1 year ago 59
@lowcomedy I'd eat her with a rusty spoon and pray for lockjaw.
AGNOSSI 1 year ago
its
magnusTheDead 1 year ago
I have no problem whatsoever with evolution, origin of life or stem cells. I'll admit that I don't know enough to comment on the science for or against climate change, but the element that concerns me is not the science, but the social and civil liberty ramifications of some of the "solutions" that are proposed. The evolution debate is simply about teaching what science finds; climate change is science with a public policy agenda attached. That's the part that is fishy to me =\
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion Exactly! And that is the 800lb gorilla in the clown suit juggling kittens, knives, and meat cleavers in the room that any of the AGW proponents are discussing, in fact they refuse too and dismiss it as "conspiracy theorist" rhetoric.
I think there is definitely a anthropogenic problem, but I see it in a much larger crisis; pollution, toxic waste, deforestation, and rampant disregard for ecology in general, but when I raise this issue with AGW supporters I am summarily chastised.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@mattghtpa ; "hat any of the AGW proponents are "
There are no AGW proponents, idiot. Only a sociopath would be a AGW proponent.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile You obviously have a brain because you breathe and can type, but that’s probably as good as it gets and as much it can handle without the danger of being taxed.
pro•po•nent
1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.
2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate.
3. a person who supports a cause or doctrine; adherent.
Synonyms: supporter, champion, enthusiast.
As in a person who supports the idea that AGW is fact. Hope this helped you understand
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@entyrion I am dismissed and condescendingly explained that "global change" is a much more serious issue and that everything that our "leaders" proclaim is just and true and that I should fall lock step in with all the AGW agendas or else I’m a "kook", a "conspiracy theorist", and or a "denier". My response is I am to trust the same leaders who what, have not demonstrated a single philanthropic or altruistic notion among them for decades?
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@mattghtpa Well, if you don't trust the political leaders, why don't you spend some time reading and listening to the scientists who actually work on the problem?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@mattghtpa
-
Why would they lie about AGW?
Yes I know about cap and trade, what I want to know is how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy?
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Also, if you look carefully, you'll find that not only are the same people who oppose Climate Change also opposed to evolution, they list many of the same reasons for their opposition (well, not cap and trade, but the conspiracy, it's anti-human, just a theory, nobody's actually seen it happen, ect).
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@entyrion The same leaders that have murdered and slaughtered over a million Middle Eastern people, that couldn’t even muster enough brain cells to aid Katrina victims, oh, and the same ones that have allowed our economy to collapse and implode, but insist on rewarding the perpetrators of the collapse with obscene amounts of "stimulus"? Those "leaders"? Well I have a label too; I call them "cognitive dissidents", because they have all have their collective heads up their collective asses.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@entyrion The same leaders that are in bed with the corporations that profited and created the ecological crisis on the backs of people that they are now trying to convince that they are the reason for crisis and then once again attempting to position themselves to once again make disgustingly obscene profits from "carbon taxes". Unfreaking believable! But again, I am dismissed when I present this aspect of the AGW issue.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@entyrion No, you can still draw a line between the science (what's happening to the environment, and are human greenhouse gases responsible?) and the public policy proposals on what to do about it. They're two separate things, though of course one way to argue that there shouldn't be a public policy response is to deny the science.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
The easiest way to argue against the public policy is to take the Rush L route and deny the science and everything attached to it. That's a pretty cheap path though, I agree. But it is equally cheap for the other side to ignore what a public policy skeptic actually says and brand him or her a "denier" when they are perfectly open to the scientific data, but opposed to dubious special-interest "solutions."
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion ; "limate change is science with a public policy agenda attached. "
That's because of the idiot morons and the politicians who rely on stupid people for their pay. Scientists didn't make global climate change a political issue: they just published the data, and were persecuted for doing so. The fact that morons reject the observed facts based on greed and politics in no way mitigates the fact that humans have caused and are causing climate change.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile
The real problem is when someone raises their hand to point out some critical flaws in the "solutions" and the response is "Shut up you idiot, this is SCIENCE, these are FACTS! You must be a DENIER!"
The measurement of climate change is science, public policy to fix the problem like cap and trade is not. You talk about "stupid people" and "morons" but as you do so, you run a risk of allowing your emotions to cloud the debate and a more careful analysis of some of these "solutions"
entyrion 1 year ago
Umm, hello. Didn't any of you such learned people notice that you used the wrong ITS in the sentence starting at 0:12 ? You put in "it's" (the contraction for "it is" instead of "its" (the possessive form) in the sentence "...has been it's Director...".
JixYt 1 year ago
@JixYt Well, anytime a make a comment about somebody who can't spell, I'm called a spelling Nazi, so I don't worry about it anymore.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever "Well, anytime a make a comment about somebody who can't spell, I'm called a spelling Nazi, so I don't worry about it anymore."
.
LOL! And you fucked up your spelling HERE, in your comment above. LOL! You put in "a" for "I" in "anytime *a* make a comment". LOL! That's okay, though. I put a lot of the blame on fucking TheirTube for not putting in a way to edit one's comment after you've posted it.
JixYt 1 year ago
@JixYt That's a typo--if I wasn't typing, I wouldn't have done it. You're easily amused. BTW, you left out the closing parenthesis (that's the singular form of parentheses) after "the contraction for 'it is'".
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
Comment removed
JixYt 1 year ago
Comment removed
JixYt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tctheunbelvr "That's a typo--if I wasn't typing, I wouldn't have done it."
Oh, right. It was a typo b/c the letters "a" and "i" are so near each other on the keyboard, right? STFU!
"You're easily amused."
Yes, and you make it even easier. LOL!
"BTW, you left out the closing parenthesis (that's the singular form of parentheses)"
It is?! OMG, I never knew that!
"after "the contraction for 'it is'"
That's right I did. THIS was a fucking typo--not a mistake of putting in the wrong fucking word.
JixYt 1 year ago
I definately think so, the misinformation campaign played by claimate deniers is actually more dangerous than creationism, because this misinformation goes beyond just screwing up science education to actually harming the livability of this planet for future generations.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago 18
What a Woman!!!!!!!!!!
CBTENGR100 1 year ago
thunderf00t sent me here
frembo1 1 year ago 2
@frembo1 likewise
magiorey 1 year ago
At least someones defending science education in America.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
I can't understand why the creationists are also so upset with climate science. I mean, what part of their fundamentalist religious beliefs does it conflict with?
Part of the solution to global warming is nuclear power, and I thought conservatives *liked* nuclear power.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago 2
@ApolloWasReal "what part of their fundamentalist religious beliefs does it conflict with?"
I've actually heard people cite Genesis 9:11 - where God promises not to flood the earth again - as proof the sea levels aren't rising, therefore global warming is a conspiracy.
Oh, how I wish I were joking.
There's also the "God gave man dominion over the Earth to do as he pleased" argument and "if the globe's warming, it's God's will" claim.
But mostly, I think, it's a distrust of science in general.
TempestStormwind 1 year ago
Thank god there is an organization out there promoting real science to the public and fighting ignorance and the effects that ignorance causes.
EcrossH 1 year ago 2
The trouble with popularizing climate change is that one, it's newer, and two, everyone who writes about it is telling you what to do about it, not about the science behind it.
Golkarian 1 year ago
Even if it were wrong why should we not reduce our polluting footprint on our Earth? Do these people think that these types of nonrenewable resources will go on forever...Including our air, soil and water?
cmsalvagio 1 year ago 2
@bofors7715
Oh look, another conspiracy nut! Let me guess, global warming, like 9/11 is another conspiracy for government control! Oh how could they. If you went one step further, you would have seen that evolution and atheism were in on this conspiracy.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally
-
Thats exactly what he is, check his profile. Find one CTist in one thing you'll probably find they believe a bunch of other nonsense as well.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago
_it's_ director?
0x8x0 1 year ago 2
@0x8x0
Well, it's not the Center for Grammar Education.
shockferret 1 year ago
Well, you can't spell "SCIENCE" without NCSE!
DarwinsChihuahua 1 year ago
Ahh, I appreciate the fact that I only have to pay my tax to support science here in Denmark.
JRBendixen 1 year ago 3
@JRBendixen And yet we all pay in some way:(
THEHARMONIKZ 1 year ago
Oh please... this is ridiculous.
"Global warming" is a lop-sided fraud.
bofors7715 1 year ago
@bofors7715 It is only ridiculous to those that ignore the science.
bobster451 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bofors7715 ; "'Global warming' is a lop-sided fraud."
That's excellent news! Whew! What a relief! I'm sure you will now write a paper on the subject, submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal, and correct all the scientists. Thank you! Oh, thank you!
Desertphile 1 year ago
Thank you, Genie.
TeaDbluJay 1 year ago