Yeah, back in the 1970's they talked about global cooling. But understand, the science back then was very very young. At least a generation has gone by of study since then, and so frankly the global cooling debacle is a red herring.
good video. Unlike the rest here I agree. There is not one single serious scientific insitute who denides that we humans are participating in causing global warming.
@fishblades Ehm no. But in reality the scientists happens to follow the evidence. Thats why the scientists says the world is round dumbass. Im not telling you to follow the scientists because they are scientists, im telling you to listen to them, instead of thinking that global warming is stupid because you managed to debunk some random retards.
Example
""""Wow, I debunked these people wicked idea about how global warming works, that means it must be a lie""
It's important to take it all with a pinch of salt, so to speak. Penn and Teller make some good points, so do you. The truth is that its very hard to prove things, even gravity as we know it is a theory.
I think it's all about good, open-minded research and making judgement calls as to what you believe and act by, like making an educated guess. Nothing is ever 100% certain, and this subject seems to have some differing, reasonable explanations and theories.
Chaos, these videos your making actually disenfranchise your ideals by a good deal. If you wanted people to agree with you, and be interested enough in P&T to check up on everything they say on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't have made a YouTube video about it with quick flashing comment bubbles and disjointed segments.
Incidentally, the IPCC report you just quoted is proof of the AGW hoax. Global warming for the last 100 years, but heavy industry has only lasted for the last 50 years. The planet was warming long before then because we just had the Little Ice Age. Duh!
@Willaev Heavy industry began with the industrial revolution- which began as late as the mid 19th century- that means heavy industry has been around for 100-150 years-which is when CO2 levels began to rise. The climate has changed through out the course of the planets life- but on a very slow and predictable sine-curve. What scientists are measuring now are unprecedented and too rapid to be part of any natural trend-plus it coincides with the start of the industrial revolution. There is no hoax
frankly i don't care i burn everything i can, i turn tires just because it makes a tone of black smoke. the warmer it gets the longer i can play on the lake!
@wbzane69 hotter temperatures means more water evaporation- which means less lake every year. Hotter temps and CO2 levels acidify water and kill marine ecology. The warmer it gets, the less lake you have- I can send you hundreds of scientific papers proving all of this beyond a shred of reasonable doubt. Burning tires is also highly toxic, I hope you aren't inhaling the fumes.
Hey directed chaos. I'm guessing you are very young and don't remember the huge article in TIME magazine of 1974 about global cooling and the ice age predicted by also scientists. And In 1972 the National Science Board reported that because of natural cycles of the earth would enter a cooling period. And the National Academy of Sciences also wasn't sure about cycles and climate prediction. There is your proof. Do u want me to get the actual papers so you can see beyond present time?
It's funny, at 2:00 min in the report says "but we cannot rule out that some SIGNIFICANT part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability".
Don't stand too close to the microwave while wearing that tinfoil hat.
climate change is bullshit and everyone knows it. you're going to have to find some new pseudo scientific bullshit in order to steel our cash-freedom.
I couldn't care less how many 'scientists' they have on the pay roll.this video is just a list of names with NO substance
@pilgim most people know climate change is bullshit- yes that is probably true. Most people barely have a high school diploma. Most people do not understand basic chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology etc. If you think something is true because most people believe it, then you are engaging in a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) and your comment is logically invalid and overall just silly kindergarten talk. When it comes to matters of science, I defer to scientists not magicians
Oh I see.unless I have a mortar board on my head I have no right to think or have an opinion,the fact I am indeed qualified to speak on the matter shouldn't intimidate others from their own opinion,however you seem to be more interested in being a smug arrogant prick than offering any reasonable response to my comment.So the new priests er I mean scientists are infallible in your limited mind,well thats YOUR problem. No jobs too dirty for a fucking scientist eh.
@pilgim I think you should re-read what I said. At no time did I say or suggest that you can't have an opinion- you made that up and pinned it on me for some bizarre reason. My comment was thoughtful, civil and logically consistent. I welcome a counter-argument that meets that same criteria. But instead of countering my claim that you engaged in argumentum ad populum (I only accused you of a logical fallacy, nothing more) you attack me personally (argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy)
I think YOU should re-read what you've written and figure out why any would want to attack you? possibly you are as I said 'smug and arrogant' I retract nothing
@pilgim "smug and arrogant" are opinions, for which you have not cited any strong proof. All I said, in case you misread it, was that your argument was illogical- nothing else. I didn't say you could not have any opinion or that you should retract anything as you have suggested. I only pointed out that believing something to be true bc most people think that way is a logical fallacy. Feel free to disprove that statement. So far, I have made civil/logical arguments and all you've made are insults
@muetter so what's illogical in my argument then? Also you seem to be extremely selective in the points you try to challenge mostly the irrelevant ones too.
@pilgim What's illogical? I've said it two times now, were you not reading my comments? I'll say it a third time- You said climate change is bullshit and everyone knows it- I said it doesn't matter what "everyone knows" because most people don't know much beyond a basic high school education- especially in the US and third world countries. If you believe that having alot of people believe something makes it true then that is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum). See my second comment
Oh so a 'high school education' means what then? remember my mortar board quote? high school my friend is nothing more than an indoctrination factory that produces arrogant little twerps who are all brains and no sense,the mere fact that you hold it in such high regard makes me wonder if its worth responding.He who pays the piper calls the tune,so everyone knows is valid when its the consensus of the school board is it?
@pilgim part 2- I could fisk the rest of what you said much easier in person or over email- but I'll do my best here. You said "you're going to have to find some new pseudo scientific bullshit in order to steel our cash-freedom." Who is going to find a new pseudo science? How does that translate into stealing cash and freedom? This sounds shamefully like Glenn Beck language, to be frank. See part 3
@pilgim part 3- You said "I couldn't care less how many 'scientists' they have on the pay roll" Who has scientists on payroll? Before you were worried about pseudo science, now you about-face and say you don't care about scientists? So are you following the data/science or aren't you? Since you admitted that you think Climate Change is bunk, name 1 reputable scientist that has published papers supporting your argument. See part 4
@muetter no I'm not worried nor ever have been worried about science be it psuedo or other so please dont try and second guess my thoughts 'incorrectly' as for those on the pay roll maybe you'd better read the club of Rome documents from the 60's where they state their aim is to 'aquire' the mouth pieces of the scientific community to scaremonger the useless eaters into handing over more power and cash (funny that) so they can protect us as of course they know better than us.
Respond to this video... I could give you several hundred links,just look it up shouldnt be a problem finding them, what do you mean by 'credible scientist' one that agrees with your view possibly? I'm sure you'd find fault with any that didnt. back to another major point you conveniently skipped over,you seem to think that the scientist are the new clergy who can preach down to the little man as they know best,NO! they'd never have an agenda other than the improvement of mankind PAH!
@pilgim part 4- You've constructed a scenario where either all the independent scientists have conspired to spread a lie that will somehow (though it isn't clear how) make hem money and make you poor/enslaved, or you are just simply a non-scientist arguing against a consensus of scientists. You said "this video is just a list of names with NO substance" The author refutes P&t's arguments by providing examples and scientific data that challenge it, that is the very definition of substance -end
end? you talk as if you're the oracle of you tube then whinge when you get called names like 'arrogant' I've just looked in the dictionary and the definition it gives for substance is nothing to do with your frankly weird rant.
@pilgim As you can see, I am anything but selective- I challenged ALL your points (which were all irrelevant frankly bc they are too vague and illogical). The author of the videos provided nothing but substance, he counter argued with facts and evidence that directly supported his counter-argument- you can't get more substantive than that! What should he have done instead to meet your very high standard of argument (which you clearly don't hold yourself to)?
Well done, directedchaos. Bullshit used uneducated but well meaning people to make global warming look false. Just because the protesters didnt well explain the science, doesnt make the science wrong. Many people dont understand medical science either, but we all trust doctors.
Dude you missed the point of this episode. If you could only see that the main point how people jumping to rash conclusion about the environment. The people in the video might have a lot information that are false because they take too much time researching the actual data. That doe not mean there are any environmental issues in parts of the world. There are it just these hype and hysteria containing the truth.
Young people...man oh man. Remember, it wasn't more than 30 years ago that "global cooling" was the latest scary thing, and artist renderings of the frozen oceans we're circulated with as much attention as "an inconvenient truth."
You notice that in the past 2 years, the usage of "global warming" has almost exclusively changed to "climate change," which gives them an easy way to explain why it is 68 degrees on a July afternoon.
I'll stoop to tear your (presumably "old"?) ass apart.
1) Most young people are against me. Read the comments; youtubers are young.
2) I address global cooling. Watch the videos! SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS NEVER SUPPORTED GLOBAL COOLING. IT'S CALLED THE GLOBAL COOLING MYTH. Google it if you don't want to watch.
3) Global warming *CAUSES* climate change. Climate change will VARY by LOCATION, but GLOBALLY IT WILL BE WARMER.
Tear my ass apart? LOL! Come on man, I am not gonna stoop to ANY level to try and insult you for what you believe. You assuming that I am old is your disadvantage - I am in my mid 20's. I mention "young people" as the over-passionate group of peers with which I so often argue.
Long before man, the earth was getting hot, then cold, then hot again, and then cold again. To assume that the Earth is now "perfect" and these cycles/changes are purely due to man is a farce.
@nateman742 Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't take care of the planet, it is everyones home and we all have to live here. What I am saying is we are far from being sure humans are the cause and many of the proposed actions on carbon would hurt the poorest of the poor in the world. There is more consistant data on sun activity and temps as well as CO2 levels following temps.
@directedchaos lol Global cooling was everywhere. Exactly like the current global warming except it didn't become as politicized. It was in schools, it was in science mags, kids were scared we were going to starve to death. The IPCC didn't exist then & global cooling didn't become a religion like warming is There is plenty of evidence of temp changes on earth, problem for environmentalists is, it's far more related to sun activity but they ignore that because that cant be used to control people
@directedchaos Something tells me that the million mile wide ball of burning nuclear gas affects our temperature much more than cars and trucks. However, you can't tax sunlight.
@directedchaos Wow, you're a mature, well-informed master of rebuttal! Global warming and cooling will happen regardless of our activity, we can only slightly effect the outcome. The big thing to worry about would probably be the increased damage to skin and related cancers caused sun rays via our washed-up ozone layer. Nowhere nearly as threatening as the social cancer made up of kids like you, because we can stop what we're doing; you can't. You've got your idea(l) and you ain't lettin' go!
@chainrider global warming only predicted global average temperatures- which have risen every year. The term was changed to climate change because many non-scientists kept asking "if the earth is getting warmer, then why are we still having cool days?" Because the "average temp" does not mean "every temp", scientists changed the term to climate change- so that people people could understand that just bc the temp today was cooler than yesterday, doesn't mean this year is cooler than last year
@chainrider global warming ,global climate change'global dimming are just vehicles for control and monoply people and consumer goods not to mention people and their tax money.there is no such thing as global warming as you already know.there is a problem with increasing erratic weather ,siesmic activity,and magnetic disturbances that is the part this little EFF needs to get though his thick little membrane.lord gore minions and their global warming religion is a boondoggle panic for profitHOAX
you criticized penn and teller for using some random girl. and then you used wikipedia? and pause at 3:04 you say 75% agreed while the other 25% were not taking a position. in other words they were undecided. 1 out of 4 scientists being undecided shows that there is definitely a large amount of doubt. and the reason why is that you will be ruined in the scientific community for disagreeing with global warming because many scientists are on board as you pointed out. but 1/4 are not sure.
google climategate. you fail so hard. global warming is a liiiiiiieeeeee big lie. so much bullshit. nice list of government funded research to prove government needs to steal more money to "do something about it".
People aren't always going to do everything for you, like your mom for example. And I get the strong feeling you spend a lot of time writing posts back to shit like this all over the internet just so you can feel a sense of pride like you outsmarted somebody. Grow a dick and stop getting your kicks off creating a debate every chance you get because honestly, you lose.
"What would be evidence against his argument would be a list of accredited scientists that are skeptical against global warming, nothing more, nothing less. Go ahead and provide this if you can." Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of a search engine? There are literally a shitload of resources about scientists refuting global warming.
Wouldn't the 11,000 + scientists criticizing the misuse of science in politics be evidence *against* your argument that there is a consensus?
Correlation does not equal causation. This is BASIC. Also, the changes in temperature occur before the corresponding changes in CO2 emissions.
And of course evolution is debatable. Neither the fact that contemporary arguments against it are unscientific, nor the prestige it's gained after being debated since the 1800s make it untouchable.
No, it would only be evidence that they criticize the misuse of science in politics. Amongst these are a large portion of the people alienated by the Bush administration, which was notoriously unsupportive of unbiased scientific input, and equally unsupportive of efforts to combat climate change. What would be evidence against his argument would be a list of accredited scientists that are skeptical against global warming, nothing more, nothing less. Go ahead and provide this if you can.
Wow @ poster, I got news buddy. YOUR NOT USING REAL SCIENCE. Your borrowing articles from the same website. If you knew a damn thing about science you know that it takes way more than just a few sources to make a real argument. Your data is misleading. I will personally send you articles and links (just like your doing) that refute every remark you make "in the name of science" in this stupid video. Scientists don't AGREE 100% on global warming you stupid fool which is why they say that.
Why don't you do it here so that this isn't just you making claims you aren't substantiating. You can call him stupid all you want, but until you provide evidence I'll take his existent articles and links to your currently imaginary ones.
This moron who did this ideo is simply re-reading the BS that the tree hugging wackos spew. The are many more degreed scientist that disagree with the idea of global warming than those that do. Follow the money folks, right to the pockets of people like Gore.
You are laughably wrong, did you even watch this video? There are no scientific organizations which reject anthropogenic global warming. None. Are these contrary scientists hiding under rocks somewhere?
Go to "scientific opinion on climate change" on wikipedia and go to the section "Statements by organizations" Count 'em. Have fun.
Yep, good analysis. I'm real glad you pointed out very clearly the connection with the Cato Institute and its background. God-awful libertarian entitlement bleaters got every hick from down the road banging on about being taxed by the NWO. Well, there probably is a global corporate elite including oil industry lobbyists and anti-tax screetchers but I'm sure they can do better than this. The fact remains global warming is man-made and coming to a global village near you. Tax? Preferable to death!
I love how the author of this video hypes science, Science, SCIENCE. This guy is kinda hilarious now that the 'science' of man-made global warming is in question.
It is interesting to me that the episode in question is entitled "Environmental Hysteria," and there are over 100 (of 172, right now) comments here from a person who is, by definition, hysterical.
From Merriam-Webster, for this definition-loving man:
"Main Entry: hys·te·ria...
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess"
dude, you're a fucking idiot, the point they are making is that these people are jumping on the band wagon to push a hidden agenda. Al Gore, vice president of the U.S. exaggerated in his film to push people into the fear of it. There is no way to prove that Global Warming is caused by man, it could be a number of natural possiblities. Each day the earth moves closer to the sun. If you look at the climate patterns of the earth's history its up and down. You are fucking stupid, thank you
I posted this on the actual video for the P&T BS Episode. It is important to note that the Show originally aired on April 18, 2003 You are sighting evidence from beyond that time. Do they pick on people, probobly. However they are usually pointing out that people within these movements don't know what they are talking about. It is important do do research and think for yourselves. Not to say I agree with thier stance, quite the oposite, but this has more to do with people who blindly follow
don't try to reason with a liberal environmentalist..in one ear and out their mouth, understand? they're all puppets to the globalist who want to tax air.
Often I quite like "Bullshit", even if it browbeats it's viewers a little but when I saw this episode I was pretty disgusted.
Of course there are people who use the environmental agenda for their own gain or who espouse environmentalism while being ignorant of the actual issues. But this went way over board.
Crass generalizations and blind assumptions seemed to rule the day.
My wife, a diehard Republican, asked if I'd seen the "Bullshit" episode on global warming. Knowing Penn is smart, but something of a whackjob, I checked it out. By the time I was done, I was so pissed I was going to do exactly what you have done here. Fortunately I found your video before I killed a weekend on such a project. You've done a masterful job of beating the crap out of Penn. Well done!
Just because people have so called credentials, doesn't mean they're always right, and they don't lie. For example, let's take a look at the EPA's second hand smoke study in 1993, they had predetermined variables and "cherry picked things" to come to a false conclusion. In 1998, A judge ruled the study as misleading by the way, so is the scientific community always right about science? The answer is no.
Over 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying global warming is a hoax. Right now the trend of Rising temperatures have been going down, and there is more ice in the Antarctic in the last 3 yrs. People in the 70's said the same thing about global cooling, the ozone layer being depleted, before you knew it, everything was back to normal. With the reference to the china town being polluted at the beginning, keep in mind, china is a communist country, basically almost complete government control.
the problem with that petition, which you can look at online, is that a large percentage of these "scientists" arnt actually scientists. in fact 10,102 are engineers, aka, people that design and buld things. these are not people that deal with the environment the way climatologists do. Medicine bosts 3,046. these would be doctors you go to see to find out whats wrong with you, and the people that do studies where the human body is concerned, not the climate.
in fact when you get right down to it, the only people out of that 33,000 figure that really has any buisness signing anything about the environment is the 3,803 scientists that signed under the title "atmosphere, earth and environment." and of them only 39 are climatologists. im certain the Marshall institute, which is run by Robert Sietz ( who put the pettition out) whos mission is to prevent reform by spreading uncertainty in the media, is behind this one at least to some extent.
You might like Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube as its relavent to globalism , the enviroment etc(however dont watch the first zeitgeist movie its shite)
I was on board all the way until you said "nature's beauty is worth preserving". That's just baby talk.
Sorry, but animals eating each other is not worth preserving, not matter how much misinformation against this mostly legit movement someone like Penn throws out.
and you skip so many parts of this episode how about you go and look up the first episode these dumbass enviromentalists sign a petition to ban WATER. Why defend these dumbasses????
yo u r a douchebag man. If you go and look at the history of the earth, and im not talking about recent history that these corporate puppets that you have so graciously provided have given out. Hell, millions of years ago humans could'n't even have survived on our planet so therefore these points that you read at people acting like you r the shit makes you an asshole.
If I managed to extract your point correctly from profanities and poor sentance structure you're talking about the geological (million-billion) year time scale temperature and climate cycle?
If you are then you are a douche bag, because atm we should be on a cooling cycle going into another iceage.
Even though I think the global warming craze is stupid,because there's nothing we can do about it,I STILL believe we would be killing ourselves if we cut down the trees,the trees and the ocean help keep our air clean,trees help filter the air! You could use natural HEMP for most of the products logging is used for, especially paper products!There IS alternative methods, even to OIL--which is the reason we KILL millions of innocent brown people.Fish filled with mercury, pharmaceuticals in water!!
You are fucking stupid, you are quoting papers put out by scientists who are paid by environmental sensationalists. You think you are clever and intelligent but the fact of the matter is you make yourself look like an idiot by quoting unreliable 'research.' If you truly want to know what you are talking about take a science course and realize that the true heart of the matter is things go extinct and new organisms come into existence. It's natural, and the planet regulates itself accordingly.
I have taken a science course. An Environmental Geoscience Degree infact, with focus on planetary homeostasis (self-regulation) and climate change. That research is the THE most reliable that anyone has produced ever. The product of the biggest analysis of INDEPENDENT research ever produced. (As opposed to the various (mostly American, GM motors/Bush back propaganda machines). And yes, extinction is part of existence, however in this case the extinction in question is our own.
The fact that you KINDA debunked Penn & Teller says A LOT! You are right..Pollution IS a problem...but it's not as severe as you think..back in the 16-18th centuries (I don't remember which exactly) we had a SEVERE water pollution becuase of all the steam being used...it was so severe that it always rained. Constant raining also killed plants too sine too much water is bad for some species of plant.
Your first video made you look like an idiot but your second video is IMPRESSIVE! Global Warming IS INEVITABLE... Remember the ICE AGE? Anyways.... you kinda got me in the middle with this vid... but you can't argue with them with what they said about PETA or MOST of who they dealt with =^_^=
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that us petty humans have no control of. Global warming is something we shouldn't be using our time on. I also think that the decaying countries of the west are using global warming to curb the growth of China and India and other developing countries. Also this guy should do more research for their are quite many prominent scientists that do not agree that humans or cow farts have any effect on climate change.
perhaps what they are alluding to is that 1) people should not use sciense as a political platform. 2) just because one scientest says GW is true, does not make it true. 3) there are smart ppl who rightly do not support GW, 4) they are asking you to look at braoder picture... expand that computer excel spread sheet to 1500 years intstead of "since 1950" oi sm.o rg/project
1) Highly hypocritical of them considering that they cite the CATO institute.
2) There are far far far FAR more than one scientist
3) I don't Support GW either, I want to reverse it. What exactly were you trying to say ?
4) Why do you think those scientist are convinced of mankinds effect on global temperatures ? they compare the RATE of temperature changes for the past 1500 years ago to the RATE of change since 1950. Do you even understand how science works ?
there were times during the middle ages, and such when the temperature "jumped" you look as far back as possible because you can look at other periods when the earth warmed and cooled (hello, ice age, on top of plant life in Antarctica) for instance, if the temperature jumped 10 degrees in 1200CE, why? they didnt have cars did they? thats what i mean with 1500 years... perhaps you dont understand how science works... by not supporting gw, i meant not supporting the theory of man caused GW
tempatures have NEVER jumped 10 degrees in a single year. Also when I mentioned RATE (emphasis using captials) I was "allluding" to such "jumps" which happen often, however, none of these "jumps" have occured in a period as short as 50 years, like is happening now.
Looking back and comparing temperatures and rates of change are EXACTLY what those far far far FAR more than one scientist did to come to the conclusions they have, which is what I was implying in my 4th response.
Penn and Teller are idiots. The guy who made this video should have his own show. Penn and Teller are wrong pretty much all the time about their show. directedchaos can prove it and is proving it. Penn and Teller tell lies and put it on tv and people actually believe their bullshit. They had a good name for the show, because that's all it is.
penn and teller are not idiots. they say multiple times that they dont no what causes it and there is some debate on the causes of global warming between scientist though most do believe it is human casued. and they are not wrong on most of there shows they are actually correct about almost everything they say.
Beautiful work. Well done. The ExxonMobil etc.-funded Cato Institute has been bashing the environmental movement for decades. Penn Jillette is just their latest dancing monkey shill.
Both of these imbalanced albeit passionate videos may be a key to why many Americans question the science and motives behind global warming. This `debunking' diatribe is itself riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't (or refuse to) see that. Very likely why in a poll conducted in Jan. of this year, a (nonpartisan) Pew Research Center survey determined that global warming was a dead-last concern of those surveyed.
"Pew Research Center survey determined that global warming was a dead-last concern of those surveyed."
I'm sure Penn and other anti-science-which-might-lead-to-regulation zealots are partially to blame, but most of it comes from an elementary understanding of psychology.
Global warming is a problem half a century away. Problems with employment, health care, and education in this recession are *now*. We tend to revert to simple stimulus-response creatures in such tough times.
"This `debunking' diatribe is itself riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't (or refuse to) see that."
Try me. Just know that I've heard mountains of libertarian bullshit, so start rambling anything retarded like "solar variation explains global warming", or particularly something covered in the video like "in the 70s we thought an ice age was coming", and I'll fling so many insults your way it'll make me blush.
directedchaos: "...I'll fling so many insults your way it'll make me blush."
This is precisely why your retorts, lack the single most important component to any debate of issues: credibility. Given those with purported consensus on global warming as well as reasoned detractors, leave room for the possibility of error; yet you've apparently invested so much emotional capital in the subject matter, reason is replaced by an attack mode all too common. Telling.
directedchaos: "...all you can do is rant about my `possible' future insulting. Very lame"
Actually what's "lame" is your continued intrusion into a reality distortion field. I made an initial observation that you apparently believe to be misplaced or an attack on your values. To each his own; although if this is the manner in which you interpret "fact" (in affect, the scientific hypothesis that is global warming), then I'll give you the last word since obviously your ego requires that. ;)
@NoBamaYoMamma You accuse the poster of committing many logical fallacies- but you do not name a single one. You said "This...diatribe is..riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't...see that." Yes, we can't see it because you have not shown us these logical fallacies. The poll you site proves how mislead and uninformed the public is on Climate Change. People like you watch P&T- get mislead- and then decide that CC isn't a priority bc you lack science
A good (2) videos. You did show that their show (in this instance, perhaps others) was full of horrible errors and they either didn't do the research (doubtful) or they're biased (more likely). I almost suspect that Penn's friends are yanking him around.
I like a lot of the BS shows, but sometimes they bomb, relying on Rush Limbaugh type journalism. This episode was pretty bad. Their main picks to represent the "pro" side were an under-informed college student from a activist organization, and an environmental "journalist". Not a single scientist. They cite Bjorn Lomborg as having "studied" the issue. Um, he's not a Physical or Biological Scientist -- his degree in in Poly Sci! This episode was very poorly researched.
I see you're 22. That is about the age when I started debating on the Internet (I got it in 1993 when I enrolled at the university). And looking at your style here... gods, you remind me so much of myself of how I argued back then. I was *right* and if anyone didn't accept my argument, they were, to use your word "idiot[s]".
Then I grew up. Been discussing on the 'Net since then until today. And guys like you, remind me about how I used to be, and as such remind me to always better myself.
4) Make a clear stance on AGW. Specifically: DO WE KNOW THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND IF NOT HOW CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
5) Answer the questions I posed.
Generally kissing my ass wouldn't hurt. I sincerely doubt you'll even care to try, so I'll go back to the childish insults, because they're so much more fun than MERELY repeating the same facts over and over to you. You're a big boy, you can click play and/or follow the links.
hey there's no point in arguing this guy, he is just like a creationist. He knows he is right even when he is shown how wrong he is. The more wrong he is the louder and more off topic he will get.
I gave up awhile ago when he wouldn't give up that water could cause vomiting.
And yes, lies including *misleading*. Look it up. Saying water causes vomiting etc. is designed to *mislead* the target into thinking water is *unhealthy* -- and it clearly isn't.
This is a stupid point to argue. The whole point was to show that presenting factual information in an alarmist way will make people agree to anything without knowing what it was. Everything that petition about water said was true. That was the POINT. Trying to argue it plays into Bullshit's hands.
"Everything that petition about water said was true."
If someone came up to me and said "water causes vomiting, will you sign a petitiion banning it?"
I'd say "fuck off dumb shit, you're lying."
Not because water doesn't, technically, cause vomitting. Hell, oxygen can kill. That doesn't mean you can walk around saying "oxygen kills" -- that's LYING.
Why? BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE TARGET INTO THINKING WATER IS UNHEALTHY, WHEN IT ISN'T.
Now, that said, I agree this is one of the LEAST important points I make -- everyone knows water is unhealthy, and at some level everyone realizes these people were duped, and it could happen to anyone. Bullshit! is famous for these horrifically unscientific tests, which all show how trusting people are. Generally, we don't *expect* people to be trying to trick us.
What a naive world huh? Or maybe Bullshit! is just full of assholes.
And saying that scientists *know* what cases global warming is bullshit. There is very little consenus on the subject today. IPCC's report on global warming and specifically the chapter that speaks of what causes is was not reviewd by all 2500 IPCC scientists, but only 62. Not all agreed, and many of those that said it was man-made had a vested interrest in saying so, eventually leaving only a handful of scientiststhat had any credibility. There is *not* consensus among scientists in this issue.
"And saying that scientists *know* what cases global warming is bullshit."
No, you DENYING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND CONSENSUS IS BULLSHIT. Greenhouse gases, which have been greatly increased from human activity, are to blame.
"There is very little consenus on the subject today"
Did you even watch the video? NO MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD DISAGREES: HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
Heh... stepped on a sore toe did I? Name calling me already.
The claims by the IPCC has been called into question for a number of reasons. The most important being that IPCC specifically by charter is out to pin the percieved GW on man, and as such has completely neglected to examine if other factors may be the cause of GW. Now don't get me wrong because if anything, I think pollution myst stop... but not so much because of claimed AGW but because millions of people *die* each year from it.
AGW is a huge *maybe*... might be true, might not be. There is only waek consensus. There is a much bigger consensus that particle and combustion pollution from fossil fuels and burning biomass cause deaths, right now, as we speak and has done so from the start of the industrial revolution! GW we can handle because the planet has gone up and down throughout history and our data is too noisy to draw any clear trends yet. But the pollution tolls are well established. Look up "Asian Brown Cloud".
No, I very much agree with P&T: the *alarmism* is bullshit.
This "OMG, the world ends NOW we we don't all change our lifestyles radically!!!"-crap is clearly nonsense.. The situation is about the same as before: could be better, could be alot worse. There are way bigger problems about than GW. P&T are scientific skeptics and their view on the matter is "I don't know". Can't show you the video where they say if because JREF's account where it was hosted got suspended. But that's their stance.
"The world isn't collapsing over night... and we won't be saving it over night either, if indeed it needs saving. "
Exactly. These are problems that must be solved over DECADES. Estimates are something like 10% crop loss in 50 years -- that's a LONG time.
But not if we just keep nodding our heads and ignoring it. You know that's how Y2K ended up costing billions in last-minute updates. We can't last-minute reverse global warming and pollution.
Like I said at the start of the first video: NO RESPECTABLE SCIENTIST HAS SAID A DISASTER IS HAPPENING OR HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
It's all FUTURE WORRIES. What you're misunderstanding is that they've said MOST OF THE DAMAGE IS SLOW. If we cut emissions to zero right now, we'd continue heating from thermal inertia.
And no we don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know that rise just a couple degrees and you get MASSIVE climate changes. I hear 10% crop loss per degree.
It's a very slow crash, played out over another century or so. We'll start to feel the impact in 50 years or so, and if we haven't done anything about it we'll have massive migrations.
The thing is, we can't put on quick brakes, again because of thermal inertia and more importantly economic and technological hurdles. We need to start slowing down now.
And that staement right there is why we cannot say it's happening for certain. Projections for that long into the future just aren't reliable so you can't state them as fact. Now I agree caution is needed... but the *alarmism*, which is what P&T are turning against, that *is* Bullshit.
"Projections for that long into the future just aren't reliable"
What makes you so damned sure? Tell me: in 50 years, will the sun still be rising?
Yes? How can you be sure, it's so far in the future!
You have to look at the model itself, what assumptions there are, how chaotic the variables, etc. We have a 100+ years of temp data already, reliable ranges on past temperatures, and evidence of what happens to world climate under different temperatures.
"What makes you so damned sure? Tell me: in 50 years, will the sun still be rising? Yes? How can you be sure, it's so far in the future!"
Oh puh-lease... did you just compare orbital trajectory calculations with the multi-variable analysis that is climate predictions?!
To take it to the extreme: no, we don't even know if there's gravity tmorrow because got might get drunk on afriday evening and decide to mess with us in the worst possible way. The past does not fortell the furure.
"So the debate becomes IS THIS PROJECTION RELIABLE? To which I then I explain SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS PROJECTION..."
Correction: *some* scientists agree with *that* projection. Others agree that it will happen alot faster than 50 years. Others say it won't happen at all. You can't just cherry pick the scientists that say what *you* want to hear and then go "this is the way it is, period".
I'm saying "maybe", just like P&T. Again, it is the *alarmism* they, and I, argue against.
I never said "We shouldn't do anything" or anything of the kind. I specifically said we *should* do something just a few posts down. Did you forget that already?
You're screaming at P&T saying that they are doing straw men when they havn't but rather pointed out some rather glaring embarassments for the environmental hysteriacs. And now you're putting words in my mouth that are exactly the opposite of what I said below.
Will you stop whacking at the straw man... I'm over here! Hello?! *waves arms*
No, I never said "We shouldn't do anything about global warming". That is your *faulty* extrapolation of what I said. I think there are bigger issues at hand than percieved AGW, but that does *not* exclude working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not in any way! In fact reducing pollution by combustibles will most likely also cut down on the greenhouse gases as well. So I never said "Let's ignore AGW".
"YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE GLOBAL WARMING AS A PROBLEM."
What? I never said that either. I said I think there are *bigger* problems to contend with, which implicitly states that AGW is a problem, albeit not as big as you want to see it.
Conversely, if I use your standard of arguing that if you don't put a specific problem as The Worst™ you're ignoring it, when you say...
"your AIM IS NOT TO HELP AGW, JUST POLLUTION"
...I could argue that you're ignoring millions of premature deaths.
If you're going to try to "own" someone, you should at least first read what they said and try to understand the arguments, plus the implications of what they say. If you don't well then you're indeed fighting straw men.
This, that you are doing now, scremaing and hurling profanity... is not "owning"... it's just silly. There's nothing scientific about the way you argue. You're just yelling and blowing your top. Countering my claims with stuff in kind of "YOU
You sir, are still an idiot
IronCrossOz 3 weeks ago
Great job with the video, BTW.
steelyray 3 months ago
Yeah, back in the 1970's they talked about global cooling. But understand, the science back then was very very young. At least a generation has gone by of study since then, and so frankly the global cooling debacle is a red herring.
steelyray 3 months ago
great video, man. i laughed my ass off. penn and teller are ridiculous.
iluminatr462 3 months ago
Way to take your fucking quotes from Wikipedia you fucking schmuck.
rcman123 6 months ago
good video. Unlike the rest here I agree. There is not one single serious scientific insitute who denides that we humans are participating in causing global warming.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk
If everyone says the world is flat it's flat!
fishblades 7 months ago
@fishblades Ehm no. But in reality the scientists happens to follow the evidence. Thats why the scientists says the world is round dumbass. Im not telling you to follow the scientists because they are scientists, im telling you to listen to them, instead of thinking that global warming is stupid because you managed to debunk some random retards.
Example
""""Wow, I debunked these people wicked idea about how global warming works, that means it must be a lie""
What a great logic.
gulbirk 7 months ago
It's important to take it all with a pinch of salt, so to speak. Penn and Teller make some good points, so do you. The truth is that its very hard to prove things, even gravity as we know it is a theory.
I think it's all about good, open-minded research and making judgement calls as to what you believe and act by, like making an educated guess. Nothing is ever 100% certain, and this subject seems to have some differing, reasonable explanations and theories.
The Earth's systems are VERY complex.
samsungmartiHKM 8 months ago
Chaos, these videos your making actually disenfranchise your ideals by a good deal. If you wanted people to agree with you, and be interested enough in P&T to check up on everything they say on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't have made a YouTube video about it with quick flashing comment bubbles and disjointed segments.
EthanNin0 11 months ago
If anyone would like a more thorough fisking of this episode, check out this website
google search "logical science bullshit debunked" and click the first search result
muetter 11 months ago
God, I hope someone is cheating with the thumbs up. If everyone is really in this much denial, we're a little more fucked then I thought we were.
curbsideprophetlz 1 year ago
Incidentally, the IPCC report you just quoted is proof of the AGW hoax. Global warming for the last 100 years, but heavy industry has only lasted for the last 50 years. The planet was warming long before then because we just had the Little Ice Age. Duh!
Willaev 1 year ago
@Willaev Heavy industry began with the industrial revolution- which began as late as the mid 19th century- that means heavy industry has been around for 100-150 years-which is when CO2 levels began to rise. The climate has changed through out the course of the planets life- but on a very slow and predictable sine-curve. What scientists are measuring now are unprecedented and too rapid to be part of any natural trend-plus it coincides with the start of the industrial revolution. There is no hoax
muetter 11 months ago
Becoming a hysterical environmentalist over a show that criticizes environmental hysteria is EPIC FAIL on your part.
Willaev 1 year ago
frankly i don't care i burn everything i can, i turn tires just because it makes a tone of black smoke. the warmer it gets the longer i can play on the lake!
wbzane69 1 year ago
@wbzane69 hotter temperatures means more water evaporation- which means less lake every year. Hotter temps and CO2 levels acidify water and kill marine ecology. The warmer it gets, the less lake you have- I can send you hundreds of scientific papers proving all of this beyond a shred of reasonable doubt. Burning tires is also highly toxic, I hope you aren't inhaling the fumes.
muetter 11 months ago
Hey directed chaos. I'm guessing you are very young and don't remember the huge article in TIME magazine of 1974 about global cooling and the ice age predicted by also scientists. And In 1972 the National Science Board reported that because of natural cycles of the earth would enter a cooling period. And the National Academy of Sciences also wasn't sure about cycles and climate prediction. There is your proof. Do u want me to get the actual papers so you can see beyond present time?
clubjuvenil 1 year ago
It's funny, at 2:00 min in the report says "but we cannot rule out that some SIGNIFICANT part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability".
Don't stand too close to the microwave while wearing that tinfoil hat.
somuchfortalent 1 year ago
climate change is bullshit and everyone knows it. you're going to have to find some new pseudo scientific bullshit in order to steel our cash-freedom.
I couldn't care less how many 'scientists' they have on the pay roll.this video is just a list of names with NO substance
pilgim 1 year ago
@pilgim most people know climate change is bullshit- yes that is probably true. Most people barely have a high school diploma. Most people do not understand basic chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology etc. If you think something is true because most people believe it, then you are engaging in a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) and your comment is logically invalid and overall just silly kindergarten talk. When it comes to matters of science, I defer to scientists not magicians
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter
Oh I see.unless I have a mortar board on my head I have no right to think or have an opinion,the fact I am indeed qualified to speak on the matter shouldn't intimidate others from their own opinion,however you seem to be more interested in being a smug arrogant prick than offering any reasonable response to my comment.So the new priests er I mean scientists are infallible in your limited mind,well thats YOUR problem. No jobs too dirty for a fucking scientist eh.
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim I think you should re-read what I said. At no time did I say or suggest that you can't have an opinion- you made that up and pinned it on me for some bizarre reason. My comment was thoughtful, civil and logically consistent. I welcome a counter-argument that meets that same criteria. But instead of countering my claim that you engaged in argumentum ad populum (I only accused you of a logical fallacy, nothing more) you attack me personally (argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy)
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter
I think YOU should re-read what you've written and figure out why any would want to attack you? possibly you are as I said 'smug and arrogant' I retract nothing
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim "smug and arrogant" are opinions, for which you have not cited any strong proof. All I said, in case you misread it, was that your argument was illogical- nothing else. I didn't say you could not have any opinion or that you should retract anything as you have suggested. I only pointed out that believing something to be true bc most people think that way is a logical fallacy. Feel free to disprove that statement. So far, I have made civil/logical arguments and all you've made are insults
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter so what's illogical in my argument then? Also you seem to be extremely selective in the points you try to challenge mostly the irrelevant ones too.
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim What's illogical? I've said it two times now, were you not reading my comments? I'll say it a third time- You said climate change is bullshit and everyone knows it- I said it doesn't matter what "everyone knows" because most people don't know much beyond a basic high school education- especially in the US and third world countries. If you believe that having alot of people believe something makes it true then that is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum). See my second comment
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter
Oh so a 'high school education' means what then? remember my mortar board quote? high school my friend is nothing more than an indoctrination factory that produces arrogant little twerps who are all brains and no sense,the mere fact that you hold it in such high regard makes me wonder if its worth responding.He who pays the piper calls the tune,so everyone knows is valid when its the consensus of the school board is it?
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim part 2- I could fisk the rest of what you said much easier in person or over email- but I'll do my best here. You said "you're going to have to find some new pseudo scientific bullshit in order to steel our cash-freedom." Who is going to find a new pseudo science? How does that translate into stealing cash and freedom? This sounds shamefully like Glenn Beck language, to be frank. See part 3
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter
er.. ever heard of carbon tax?
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim part 3- You said "I couldn't care less how many 'scientists' they have on the pay roll" Who has scientists on payroll? Before you were worried about pseudo science, now you about-face and say you don't care about scientists? So are you following the data/science or aren't you? Since you admitted that you think Climate Change is bunk, name 1 reputable scientist that has published papers supporting your argument. See part 4
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter no I'm not worried nor ever have been worried about science be it psuedo or other so please dont try and second guess my thoughts 'incorrectly' as for those on the pay roll maybe you'd better read the club of Rome documents from the 60's where they state their aim is to 'aquire' the mouth pieces of the scientific community to scaremonger the useless eaters into handing over more power and cash (funny that) so they can protect us as of course they know better than us.
pilgim 11 months ago
Respond to this video... I could give you several hundred links,just look it up shouldnt be a problem finding them, what do you mean by 'credible scientist' one that agrees with your view possibly? I'm sure you'd find fault with any that didnt. back to another major point you conveniently skipped over,you seem to think that the scientist are the new clergy who can preach down to the little man as they know best,NO! they'd never have an agenda other than the improvement of mankind PAH!
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim part 4- You've constructed a scenario where either all the independent scientists have conspired to spread a lie that will somehow (though it isn't clear how) make hem money and make you poor/enslaved, or you are just simply a non-scientist arguing against a consensus of scientists. You said "this video is just a list of names with NO substance" The author refutes P&t's arguments by providing examples and scientific data that challenge it, that is the very definition of substance -end
muetter 11 months ago
@muetter
end? you talk as if you're the oracle of you tube then whinge when you get called names like 'arrogant' I've just looked in the dictionary and the definition it gives for substance is nothing to do with your frankly weird rant.
pilgim 11 months ago
@pilgim As you can see, I am anything but selective- I challenged ALL your points (which were all irrelevant frankly bc they are too vague and illogical). The author of the videos provided nothing but substance, he counter argued with facts and evidence that directly supported his counter-argument- you can't get more substantive than that! What should he have done instead to meet your very high standard of argument (which you clearly don't hold yourself to)?
muetter 11 months ago
lol; the commentary for environmentalsm is makin no scientififc sense.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
And FYI, Bjorn Lomborg recently became a global warming believer.
mrdamntn 1 year ago
@mrdamntn lol what a load o shit.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sugardaddy501 If you dont believe me look it up.
mrdamntn 1 year ago
Well done, directedchaos. Bullshit used uneducated but well meaning people to make global warming look false. Just because the protesters didnt well explain the science, doesnt make the science wrong. Many people dont understand medical science either, but we all trust doctors.
mrdamntn 1 year ago
Dude you missed the point of this episode. If you could only see that the main point how people jumping to rash conclusion about the environment. The people in the video might have a lot information that are false because they take too much time researching the actual data. That doe not mean there are any environmental issues in parts of the world. There are it just these hype and hysteria containing the truth.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
watch?v=ixzRl33MALY
They can't handle REAL SCIENCE!
Jokes won't save you from SCIENCE!
theamazingsergioman 1 year ago 3
That was upsetting.
Young people...man oh man. Remember, it wasn't more than 30 years ago that "global cooling" was the latest scary thing, and artist renderings of the frozen oceans we're circulated with as much attention as "an inconvenient truth."
You notice that in the past 2 years, the usage of "global warming" has almost exclusively changed to "climate change," which gives them an easy way to explain why it is 68 degrees on a July afternoon.
The planet is fine. The people are fucked.
chainrider 1 year ago 6
@chainrider
I'll stoop to tear your (presumably "old"?) ass apart.
1) Most young people are against me. Read the comments; youtubers are young.
2) I address global cooling. Watch the videos! SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS NEVER SUPPORTED GLOBAL COOLING. IT'S CALLED THE GLOBAL COOLING MYTH. Google it if you don't want to watch.
3) Global warming *CAUSES* climate change. Climate change will VARY by LOCATION, but GLOBALLY IT WILL BE WARMER.
Go back to school, grandpa.
directedchaos 1 year ago
@directedchaos
Tear my ass apart? LOL! Come on man, I am not gonna stoop to ANY level to try and insult you for what you believe. You assuming that I am old is your disadvantage - I am in my mid 20's. I mention "young people" as the over-passionate group of peers with which I so often argue.
Long before man, the earth was getting hot, then cold, then hot again, and then cold again. To assume that the Earth is now "perfect" and these cycles/changes are purely due to man is a farce.
chainrider 1 year ago
@directedchaos
1) Most? As in 51% of the world's young population? I didn't know you existed until fifteen minutes ago, and I spent too much time on the internet.
2) You don't know what you're talking about.
3) Global warming will change the global climate for the warmer? You're talking in circles.
nateman742 10 months ago
@nateman742 Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't take care of the planet, it is everyones home and we all have to live here. What I am saying is we are far from being sure humans are the cause and many of the proposed actions on carbon would hurt the poorest of the poor in the world. There is more consistant data on sun activity and temps as well as CO2 levels following temps.
shananagans5 10 months ago
@directedchaos lol Global cooling was everywhere. Exactly like the current global warming except it didn't become as politicized. It was in schools, it was in science mags, kids were scared we were going to starve to death. The IPCC didn't exist then & global cooling didn't become a religion like warming is There is plenty of evidence of temp changes on earth, problem for environmentalists is, it's far more related to sun activity but they ignore that because that cant be used to control people
shananagans5 10 months ago
@directedchaos Something tells me that the million mile wide ball of burning nuclear gas affects our temperature much more than cars and trucks. However, you can't tax sunlight.
MrJohnnyOldschool 7 months ago
@directedchaos Wow, you're a mature, well-informed master of rebuttal! Global warming and cooling will happen regardless of our activity, we can only slightly effect the outcome. The big thing to worry about would probably be the increased damage to skin and related cancers caused sun rays via our washed-up ozone layer. Nowhere nearly as threatening as the social cancer made up of kids like you, because we can stop what we're doing; you can't. You've got your idea(l) and you ain't lettin' go!
FREDGRASS 5 months ago
@chainrider global warming only predicted global average temperatures- which have risen every year. The term was changed to climate change because many non-scientists kept asking "if the earth is getting warmer, then why are we still having cool days?" Because the "average temp" does not mean "every temp", scientists changed the term to climate change- so that people people could understand that just bc the temp today was cooler than yesterday, doesn't mean this year is cooler than last year
muetter 11 months ago
@chainrider global warming ,global climate change'global dimming are just vehicles for control and monoply people and consumer goods not to mention people and their tax money.there is no such thing as global warming as you already know.there is a problem with increasing erratic weather ,siesmic activity,and magnetic disturbances that is the part this little EFF needs to get though his thick little membrane.lord gore minions and their global warming religion is a boondoggle panic for profitHOAX
phantomscolts1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ClimateGate. You take it from there...
pg19192002 1 year ago
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, world.
warblerab 1 year ago
directedchaos is butthurt
aquanaut145 1 year ago
what about the hide the decline scandal
simontimon2 1 year ago
IPCC has been shown to have nothing to do with science.
Herv3 1 year ago
ha ha ha stupid moron, stupid hippie tree huggers, fuck mother earth ha ha ha, no global warming
bucktastrophy 1 year ago
you criticized penn and teller for using some random girl. and then you used wikipedia? and pause at 3:04 you say 75% agreed while the other 25% were not taking a position. in other words they were undecided. 1 out of 4 scientists being undecided shows that there is definitely a large amount of doubt. and the reason why is that you will be ruined in the scientific community for disagreeing with global warming because many scientists are on board as you pointed out. but 1/4 are not sure.
hailmary7283 1 year ago
and oh yea, theres thousands of scientists and the guy who started the weather channel suing al gore for selling lies.
ekeyra 1 year ago
google climategate. you fail so hard. global warming is a liiiiiiieeeeee big lie. so much bullshit. nice list of government funded research to prove government needs to steal more money to "do something about it".
ekeyra 1 year ago
The dude who made this video should live BS to Penn and Teller, because his production skills are basically BS
mwangolatrue 1 year ago
what a bunch of dip shits
norcallogger 1 year ago
People aren't always going to do everything for you, like your mom for example. And I get the strong feeling you spend a lot of time writing posts back to shit like this all over the internet just so you can feel a sense of pride like you outsmarted somebody. Grow a dick and stop getting your kicks off creating a debate every chance you get because honestly, you lose.
TheVenlo 1 year ago
"What would be evidence against his argument would be a list of accredited scientists that are skeptical against global warming, nothing more, nothing less. Go ahead and provide this if you can." Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of a search engine? There are literally a shitload of resources about scientists refuting global warming.
TheVenlo 1 year ago
Wouldn't the 11,000 + scientists criticizing the misuse of science in politics be evidence *against* your argument that there is a consensus?
Correlation does not equal causation. This is BASIC. Also, the changes in temperature occur before the corresponding changes in CO2 emissions.
And of course evolution is debatable. Neither the fact that contemporary arguments against it are unscientific, nor the prestige it's gained after being debated since the 1800s make it untouchable.
Knonsense981 2 years ago
No, it would only be evidence that they criticize the misuse of science in politics. Amongst these are a large portion of the people alienated by the Bush administration, which was notoriously unsupportive of unbiased scientific input, and equally unsupportive of efforts to combat climate change. What would be evidence against his argument would be a list of accredited scientists that are skeptical against global warming, nothing more, nothing less. Go ahead and provide this if you can.
explosu 1 year ago
Wow @ poster, I got news buddy. YOUR NOT USING REAL SCIENCE. Your borrowing articles from the same website. If you knew a damn thing about science you know that it takes way more than just a few sources to make a real argument. Your data is misleading. I will personally send you articles and links (just like your doing) that refute every remark you make "in the name of science" in this stupid video. Scientists don't AGREE 100% on global warming you stupid fool which is why they say that.
TheVenlo 2 years ago
Why don't you do it here so that this isn't just you making claims you aren't substantiating. You can call him stupid all you want, but until you provide evidence I'll take his existent articles and links to your currently imaginary ones.
explosu 1 year ago
This moron who did this ideo is simply re-reading the BS that the tree hugging wackos spew. The are many more degreed scientist that disagree with the idea of global warming than those that do. Follow the money folks, right to the pockets of people like Gore.
joebocker63 2 years ago
You are laughably wrong, did you even watch this video? There are no scientific organizations which reject anthropogenic global warming. None. Are these contrary scientists hiding under rocks somewhere?
Go to "scientific opinion on climate change" on wikipedia and go to the section "Statements by organizations" Count 'em. Have fun.
RichardMNixon 2 years ago
This critique is bull.
JohnBreadForger 2 years ago
One way to tell who is lying .All you do is simply follow the money trail and that will lead you to the source of the lies!
Ben1238 2 years ago
There is no "scientific consensus".
There are thousands of scientists (like those who signed the Oregon petition) that do not agree with the Gore's scam.
That's not something that fits the definition of a consensus.
I am studying physics, and about 80% of my professors are either denying or being sceptical to the AGW theory.
If you want to talk about consensuss, don't call it a scientific consensus. Call it a "Government money dependent dishonest scientist consensus".
mastermind1337 2 years ago
You missed the point m8
ClipclopHorsey 2 years ago
Yep, good analysis. I'm real glad you pointed out very clearly the connection with the Cato Institute and its background. God-awful libertarian entitlement bleaters got every hick from down the road banging on about being taxed by the NWO. Well, there probably is a global corporate elite including oil industry lobbyists and anti-tax screetchers but I'm sure they can do better than this. The fact remains global warming is man-made and coming to a global village near you. Tax? Preferable to death!
julianchosun 2 years ago
I love how the author of this video hypes science, Science, SCIENCE. This guy is kinda hilarious now that the 'science' of man-made global warming is in question.
cardfanjim08 2 years ago
It is interesting to me that the episode in question is entitled "Environmental Hysteria," and there are over 100 (of 172, right now) comments here from a person who is, by definition, hysterical.
From Merriam-Webster, for this definition-loving man:
"Main Entry: hys·te·ria...
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess"
Hmmm...
lmmorrison 2 years ago 2
dude, you're a fucking idiot, the point they are making is that these people are jumping on the band wagon to push a hidden agenda. Al Gore, vice president of the U.S. exaggerated in his film to push people into the fear of it. There is no way to prove that Global Warming is caused by man, it could be a number of natural possiblities. Each day the earth moves closer to the sun. If you look at the climate patterns of the earth's history its up and down. You are fucking stupid, thank you
punkteen28 2 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@punkteen28 "There is no way to prove that Global Warming is caused by man, it could be a number of natural possiblities"
Ha, Mr expert-scientist aka 'punkteen28', did you read the relevant document and data? or even watch the video? (watch from 0m52seconds and onwards)
MORON!
TheHardProblem 11 months ago
I posted this on the actual video for the P&T BS Episode. It is important to note that the Show originally aired on April 18, 2003 You are sighting evidence from beyond that time. Do they pick on people, probobly. However they are usually pointing out that people within these movements don't know what they are talking about. It is important do do research and think for yourselves. Not to say I agree with thier stance, quite the oposite, but this has more to do with people who blindly follow
Acromanicus 2 years ago 7
don't try to reason with a liberal environmentalist..in one ear and out their mouth, understand? they're all puppets to the globalist who want to tax air.
nsewx 2 years ago
penn and teller need to stop pretending that they know about science and go back to blowing each others' cocks.
sleepytime1123 2 years ago
I'm sure a gay man such as yourself would find that entertaining but this has nothing to do with cocks sir..
nsewx 2 years ago 3
Often I quite like "Bullshit", even if it browbeats it's viewers a little but when I saw this episode I was pretty disgusted.
Of course there are people who use the environmental agenda for their own gain or who espouse environmentalism while being ignorant of the actual issues. But this went way over board.
Crass generalizations and blind assumptions seemed to rule the day.
megamarsvin 2 years ago
My wife, a diehard Republican, asked if I'd seen the "Bullshit" episode on global warming. Knowing Penn is smart, but something of a whackjob, I checked it out. By the time I was done, I was so pissed I was going to do exactly what you have done here. Fortunately I found your video before I killed a weekend on such a project. You've done a masterful job of beating the crap out of Penn. Well done!
tgrigsby7 2 years ago
Environmentalist = (Grant Whore x Scary Words)
kboom180 2 years ago
Just because people have so called credentials, doesn't mean they're always right, and they don't lie. For example, let's take a look at the EPA's second hand smoke study in 1993, they had predetermined variables and "cherry picked things" to come to a false conclusion. In 1998, A judge ruled the study as misleading by the way, so is the scientific community always right about science? The answer is no.
Deadperson213 2 years ago
America is a capitalist country so it doesn't have control over all the industry.
Deadperson213 2 years ago
Over 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying global warming is a hoax. Right now the trend of Rising temperatures have been going down, and there is more ice in the Antarctic in the last 3 yrs. People in the 70's said the same thing about global cooling, the ozone layer being depleted, before you knew it, everything was back to normal. With the reference to the china town being polluted at the beginning, keep in mind, china is a communist country, basically almost complete government control.
Deadperson213 2 years ago
the problem with that petition, which you can look at online, is that a large percentage of these "scientists" arnt actually scientists. in fact 10,102 are engineers, aka, people that design and buld things. these are not people that deal with the environment the way climatologists do. Medicine bosts 3,046. these would be doctors you go to see to find out whats wrong with you, and the people that do studies where the human body is concerned, not the climate.
palmerhusky 2 years ago
in fact when you get right down to it, the only people out of that 33,000 figure that really has any buisness signing anything about the environment is the 3,803 scientists that signed under the title "atmosphere, earth and environment." and of them only 39 are climatologists. im certain the Marshall institute, which is run by Robert Sietz ( who put the pettition out) whos mission is to prevent reform by spreading uncertainty in the media, is behind this one at least to some extent.
palmerhusky 2 years ago
You might like Zeitgeist Addendum here on youtube as its relavent to globalism , the enviroment etc(however dont watch the first zeitgeist movie its shite)
oreolvrsshane1987 2 years ago
Sorry, You can't use wikipedia to dis-prove something.
shupes312 2 years ago
I was on board all the way until you said "nature's beauty is worth preserving". That's just baby talk.
Sorry, but animals eating each other is not worth preserving, not matter how much misinformation against this mostly legit movement someone like Penn throws out.
Props on the extensive fact checking on your end.
AntiBullshitMan 2 years ago
and you skip so many parts of this episode how about you go and look up the first episode these dumbass enviromentalists sign a petition to ban WATER. Why defend these dumbasses????
fuckyoubastard100 2 years ago
yo u r a douchebag man. If you go and look at the history of the earth, and im not talking about recent history that these corporate puppets that you have so graciously provided have given out. Hell, millions of years ago humans could'n't even have survived on our planet so therefore these points that you read at people acting like you r the shit makes you an asshole.
fuckyoubastard100 2 years ago
If I managed to extract your point correctly from profanities and poor sentance structure you're talking about the geological (million-billion) year time scale temperature and climate cycle?
If you are then you are a douche bag, because atm we should be on a cooling cycle going into another iceage.
P4L3X 2 years ago
Even though I think the global warming craze is stupid,because there's nothing we can do about it,I STILL believe we would be killing ourselves if we cut down the trees,the trees and the ocean help keep our air clean,trees help filter the air! You could use natural HEMP for most of the products logging is used for, especially paper products!There IS alternative methods, even to OIL--which is the reason we KILL millions of innocent brown people.Fish filled with mercury, pharmaceuticals in water!!
MaryOMackie 2 years ago
You are fucking stupid, you are quoting papers put out by scientists who are paid by environmental sensationalists. You think you are clever and intelligent but the fact of the matter is you make yourself look like an idiot by quoting unreliable 'research.' If you truly want to know what you are talking about take a science course and realize that the true heart of the matter is things go extinct and new organisms come into existence. It's natural, and the planet regulates itself accordingly.
RandomHero891 2 years ago
I have taken a science course. An Environmental Geoscience Degree infact, with focus on planetary homeostasis (self-regulation) and climate change. That research is the THE most reliable that anyone has produced ever. The product of the biggest analysis of INDEPENDENT research ever produced. (As opposed to the various (mostly American, GM motors/Bush back propaganda machines). And yes, extinction is part of existence, however in this case the extinction in question is our own.
P4L3X 2 years ago
The fact that you KINDA debunked Penn & Teller says A LOT! You are right..Pollution IS a problem...but it's not as severe as you think..back in the 16-18th centuries (I don't remember which exactly) we had a SEVERE water pollution becuase of all the steam being used...it was so severe that it always rained. Constant raining also killed plants too sine too much water is bad for some species of plant.
NeCacaluXuxultic 2 years ago
Your first video made you look like an idiot but your second video is IMPRESSIVE! Global Warming IS INEVITABLE... Remember the ICE AGE? Anyways.... you kinda got me in the middle with this vid... but you can't argue with them with what they said about PETA or MOST of who they dealt with =^_^=
NeCacaluXuxultic 2 years ago
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that us petty humans have no control of. Global warming is something we shouldn't be using our time on. I also think that the decaying countries of the west are using global warming to curb the growth of China and India and other developing countries. Also this guy should do more research for their are quite many prominent scientists that do not agree that humans or cow farts have any effect on climate change.
66suomalainen 2 years ago
Name 5.
P4L3X 2 years ago
Comment removed
psychdlictrip 2 years ago
You're moving pretty fast there. A lot of those quotes are not as strong as make them sound if one pauses and reads the rest of the clip.
It's undoubtedly true that there is a scientific consensus in favor of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
It's also true that most GW activists know nothing more than that. That is, they have zero understanding of the actual science.
Activists tend to gloss over actual sources of uncertainty and scientific controversy.
1000101er 2 years ago
"very likely" =/= "is causing"
Climate change is real =/= linked to global warning
You keep throwing the word science yet there have been scientist that have been ignored of their data for years past till later.
Your opinion =/= science
Science does not take a position, it's only data
Tiosh 2 years ago 3
Penn Gillete is a huge hypocrite
sarcasmagasm 2 years ago
perhaps what they are alluding to is that 1) people should not use sciense as a political platform. 2) just because one scientest says GW is true, does not make it true. 3) there are smart ppl who rightly do not support GW, 4) they are asking you to look at braoder picture... expand that computer excel spread sheet to 1500 years intstead of "since 1950" oi sm.o rg/project
medievalman86 2 years ago 2
In responce:
1) Highly hypocritical of them considering that they cite the CATO institute.
2) There are far far far FAR more than one scientist
3) I don't Support GW either, I want to reverse it. What exactly were you trying to say ?
4) Why do you think those scientist are convinced of mankinds effect on global temperatures ? they compare the RATE of temperature changes for the past 1500 years ago to the RATE of change since 1950. Do you even understand how science works ?
sarcasmagasm 2 years ago 3
there were times during the middle ages, and such when the temperature "jumped" you look as far back as possible because you can look at other periods when the earth warmed and cooled (hello, ice age, on top of plant life in Antarctica) for instance, if the temperature jumped 10 degrees in 1200CE, why? they didnt have cars did they? thats what i mean with 1500 years... perhaps you dont understand how science works... by not supporting gw, i meant not supporting the theory of man caused GW
medievalman86 2 years ago
tempatures have NEVER jumped 10 degrees in a single year. Also when I mentioned RATE (emphasis using captials) I was "allluding" to such "jumps" which happen often, however, none of these "jumps" have occured in a period as short as 50 years, like is happening now.
Looking back and comparing temperatures and rates of change are EXACTLY what those far far far FAR more than one scientist did to come to the conclusions they have, which is what I was implying in my 4th response.
sarcasmagasm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Penn = Pwned
cre8ivmind 2 years ago
I hate it when people ruin a great thing by smearing there bullshit over it. What makes your opinion right?
realdarkj 2 years ago
Lomborg is the only truthful person in the crazy debate about global warming.
Lomborg IS A GOD.
Thank you for reading.
tejo29se 2 years ago
I think there is a great deal of disagreement as to what is happening and what may or may not happen.
I see it all as a moot point. We simply can NOT keep trashing the planet the way we are.
I think climate change is likely in the same way we caused the Ozone layer hole.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago
Penn and Teller is usually funny, but when you distort truth about such a serious issue, NOT FUNNY.
cryoslave88 2 years ago
the big difference between you and penn and teller is there funny... and your not
dsakiyama 2 years ago
Penn and Teller are idiots. The guy who made this video should have his own show. Penn and Teller are wrong pretty much all the time about their show. directedchaos can prove it and is proving it. Penn and Teller tell lies and put it on tv and people actually believe their bullshit. They had a good name for the show, because that's all it is.
virus20021 2 years ago
penn and teller are not idiots. they say multiple times that they dont no what causes it and there is some debate on the causes of global warming between scientist though most do believe it is human casued. and they are not wrong on most of there shows they are actually correct about almost everything they say.
dakotadenverdexter 2 years ago
Beautiful work. Well done. The ExxonMobil etc.-funded Cato Institute has been bashing the environmental movement for decades. Penn Jillette is just their latest dancing monkey shill.
tonzimala 2 years ago
Both of these imbalanced albeit passionate videos may be a key to why many Americans question the science and motives behind global warming. This `debunking' diatribe is itself riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't (or refuse to) see that. Very likely why in a poll conducted in Jan. of this year, a (nonpartisan) Pew Research Center survey determined that global warming was a dead-last concern of those surveyed.
...Keep up the good work!
NoBamaYoMamma 2 years ago 2
"Pew Research Center survey determined that global warming was a dead-last concern of those surveyed."
I'm sure Penn and other anti-science-which-might-lead-to-regulation zealots are partially to blame, but most of it comes from an elementary understanding of psychology.
Global warming is a problem half a century away. Problems with employment, health care, and education in this recession are *now*. We tend to revert to simple stimulus-response creatures in such tough times.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"This `debunking' diatribe is itself riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't (or refuse to) see that."
Try me. Just know that I've heard mountains of libertarian bullshit, so start rambling anything retarded like "solar variation explains global warming", or particularly something covered in the video like "in the 70s we thought an ice age was coming", and I'll fling so many insults your way it'll make me blush.
While debunking them, yet again.
directedchaos 2 years ago
directedchaos: "...I'll fling so many insults your way it'll make me blush."
This is precisely why your retorts, lack the single most important component to any debate of issues: credibility. Given those with purported consensus on global warming as well as reasoned detractors, leave room for the possibility of error; yet you've apparently invested so much emotional capital in the subject matter, reason is replaced by an attack mode all too common. Telling.
NoBamaYoMamma 2 years ago 3
"Given those with purported consensus on global warming"
Purported? No. Real.
"reasoned detractors"
There are none. This, for example, is not a reasoned detraction -- all you can do is rant about my *possible* future insulting. Very lame.
"reason is replaced"
Nonsense: I can be rational *and* insult at the same time.
Attack the arguments or I will demonstrate.
directedchaos 2 years ago
directedchaos: "...all you can do is rant about my `possible' future insulting. Very lame"
Actually what's "lame" is your continued intrusion into a reality distortion field. I made an initial observation that you apparently believe to be misplaced or an attack on your values. To each his own; although if this is the manner in which you interpret "fact" (in affect, the scientific hypothesis that is global warming), then I'll give you the last word since obviously your ego requires that. ;)
NoBamaYoMamma 2 years ago 4
@NoBamaYoMamma You accuse the poster of committing many logical fallacies- but you do not name a single one. You said "This...diatribe is..riddled with logical fallacies and subtle distortions. But apparently you can't...see that." Yes, we can't see it because you have not shown us these logical fallacies. The poll you site proves how mislead and uninformed the public is on Climate Change. People like you watch P&T- get mislead- and then decide that CC isn't a priority bc you lack science
muetter 11 months ago
A good (2) videos. You did show that their show (in this instance, perhaps others) was full of horrible errors and they either didn't do the research (doubtful) or they're biased (more likely). I almost suspect that Penn's friends are yanking him around.
Hellblade8 2 years ago
I like a lot of the BS shows, but sometimes they bomb, relying on Rush Limbaugh type journalism. This episode was pretty bad. Their main picks to represent the "pro" side were an under-informed college student from a activist organization, and an environmental "journalist". Not a single scientist. They cite Bjorn Lomborg as having "studied" the issue. Um, he's not a Physical or Biological Scientist -- his degree in in Poly Sci! This episode was very poorly researched.
Graeck 2 years ago
Ni shi ben dan.
tikinkss 2 years ago
I see you're 22. That is about the age when I started debating on the Internet (I got it in 1993 when I enrolled at the university). And looking at your style here... gods, you remind me so much of myself of how I argued back then. I was *right* and if anyone didn't accept my argument, they were, to use your word "idiot[s]".
Then I grew up. Been discussing on the 'Net since then until today. And guys like you, remind me about how I used to be, and as such remind me to always better myself.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago 3
"Been discussing on the 'Net"
That's the difference. This isn't a discussion. I have no interest in inviting you to dinner. I don't want your tea.
If you want me to tone it down, but still "discuss", do the following:
1) Admit where you differ from P&T: specifically, on pollution.
2) Admit your trivial slip-ups like claiming "the past does not foretell the future" -- feel lucky I'm not making you spell check.
3) Admit a severe lack of clarity, at the least, regarding your stance on AGW.
directedchaos 2 years ago
4) Make a clear stance on AGW. Specifically: DO WE KNOW THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND IF NOT HOW CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
5) Answer the questions I posed.
Generally kissing my ass wouldn't hurt. I sincerely doubt you'll even care to try, so I'll go back to the childish insults, because they're so much more fun than MERELY repeating the same facts over and over to you. You're a big boy, you can click play and/or follow the links.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Or send an PM without addressing any of them...
I'll try to react the same using that medium. Expect more insulting. :)
directedchaos 2 years ago
Hehe, you're a nice guy when you smile, you know that? :)
I just thought that the 500 chars just doesn't let me explain what I mean.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
hey there's no point in arguing this guy, he is just like a creationist. He knows he is right even when he is shown how wrong he is. The more wrong he is the louder and more off topic he will get.
I gave up awhile ago when he wouldn't give up that water could cause vomiting.
jimmyab17 2 years ago 3
"water could cause vomiting."
That's why you're like a creationist. You lie.
And yes, lies including *misleading*. Look it up. Saying water causes vomiting etc. is designed to *mislead* the target into thinking water is *unhealthy* -- and it clearly isn't.
directedchaos 2 years ago
This is a stupid point to argue. The whole point was to show that presenting factual information in an alarmist way will make people agree to anything without knowing what it was. Everything that petition about water said was true. That was the POINT. Trying to argue it plays into Bullshit's hands.
Blazhei 2 years ago 4
"Everything that petition about water said was true."
If someone came up to me and said "water causes vomiting, will you sign a petitiion banning it?"
I'd say "fuck off dumb shit, you're lying."
Not because water doesn't, technically, cause vomitting. Hell, oxygen can kill. That doesn't mean you can walk around saying "oxygen kills" -- that's LYING.
Why? BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE TARGET INTO THINKING WATER IS UNHEALTHY, WHEN IT ISN'T.
Look up the DEFINITION of LIE!
directedchaos 2 years ago
lie
1 /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
See DEFINITION 2? "Something intended or serving to convey a false impression" -- that false impression IS THAT WATER IS UNHEALTHY.
Or are you arguing WATER IS UNHEALTHY? No, you're just trying to use a black and white defense.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Now, that said, I agree this is one of the LEAST important points I make -- everyone knows water is unhealthy, and at some level everyone realizes these people were duped, and it could happen to anyone. Bullshit! is famous for these horrifically unscientific tests, which all show how trusting people are. Generally, we don't *expect* people to be trying to trick us.
What a naive world huh? Or maybe Bullshit! is just full of assholes.
directedchaos 2 years ago
And saying that scientists *know* what cases global warming is bullshit. There is very little consenus on the subject today. IPCC's report on global warming and specifically the chapter that speaks of what causes is was not reviewd by all 2500 IPCC scientists, but only 62. Not all agreed, and many of those that said it was man-made had a vested interrest in saying so, eventually leaving only a handful of scientiststhat had any credibility. There is *not* consensus among scientists in this issue.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"And saying that scientists *know* what cases global warming is bullshit."
No, you DENYING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND CONSENSUS IS BULLSHIT. Greenhouse gases, which have been greatly increased from human activity, are to blame.
"There is very little consenus on the subject today"
Did you even watch the video? NO MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD DISAGREES: HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
"IPCC scientists, but only 62"
Stop lying.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Seriously you're as bad as a Creationist denying evolution.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Heh... stepped on a sore toe did I? Name calling me already.
The claims by the IPCC has been called into question for a number of reasons. The most important being that IPCC specifically by charter is out to pin the percieved GW on man, and as such has completely neglected to examine if other factors may be the cause of GW. Now don't get me wrong because if anything, I think pollution myst stop... but not so much because of claimed AGW but because millions of people *die* each year from it.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
AGW is a huge *maybe*... might be true, might not be. There is only waek consensus. There is a much bigger consensus that particle and combustion pollution from fossil fuels and burning biomass cause deaths, right now, as we speak and has done so from the start of the industrial revolution! GW we can handle because the planet has gone up and down throughout history and our data is too noisy to draw any clear trends yet. But the pollution tolls are well established. Look up "Asian Brown Cloud".
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"the pollution tolls are well established"
Except by P&T, by the by, who claim, among other things:
"The water isn't worse today"
"Will we have air to breath? yes"
"Will we have water to drink? yes"
"Are there still forests on our planet? yes"
(Air, water and deforestation aren't problems).
From the first video. At least you recognize that their stance on pollution in general is bullshit.
directedchaos 2 years ago
No, I very much agree with P&T: the *alarmism* is bullshit.
This "OMG, the world ends NOW we we don't all change our lifestyles radically!!!"-crap is clearly nonsense.. The situation is about the same as before: could be better, could be alot worse. There are way bigger problems about than GW. P&T are scientific skeptics and their view on the matter is "I don't know". Can't show you the video where they say if because JREF's account where it was hosted got suspended. But that's their stance.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
The world isn't collapsing over night... and we won't be saving it over night either, if indeed it needs saving.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"The world isn't collapsing over night... and we won't be saving it over night either, if indeed it needs saving. "
Exactly. These are problems that must be solved over DECADES. Estimates are something like 10% crop loss in 50 years -- that's a LONG time.
But not if we just keep nodding our heads and ignoring it. You know that's how Y2K ended up costing billions in last-minute updates. We can't last-minute reverse global warming and pollution.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Like I said at the start of the first video: NO RESPECTABLE SCIENTIST HAS SAID A DISASTER IS HAPPENING OR HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
It's all FUTURE WORRIES. What you're misunderstanding is that they've said MOST OF THE DAMAGE IS SLOW. If we cut emissions to zero right now, we'd continue heating from thermal inertia.
And no we don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know that rise just a couple degrees and you get MASSIVE climate changes. I hear 10% crop loss per degree.
directedchaos 2 years ago
It's a very slow crash, played out over another century or so. We'll start to feel the impact in 50 years or so, and if we haven't done anything about it we'll have massive migrations.
The thing is, we can't put on quick brakes, again because of thermal inertia and more importantly economic and technological hurdles. We need to start slowing down now.
directedchaos 2 years ago
And that staement right there is why we cannot say it's happening for certain. Projections for that long into the future just aren't reliable so you can't state them as fact. Now I agree caution is needed... but the *alarmism*, which is what P&T are turning against, that *is* Bullshit.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"Projections for that long into the future just aren't reliable"
What makes you so damned sure? Tell me: in 50 years, will the sun still be rising?
Yes? How can you be sure, it's so far in the future!
You have to look at the model itself, what assumptions there are, how chaotic the variables, etc. We have a 100+ years of temp data already, reliable ranges on past temperatures, and evidence of what happens to world climate under different temperatures.
Why do you know more than scientists?
directedchaos 2 years ago
"What makes you so damned sure? Tell me: in 50 years, will the sun still be rising? Yes? How can you be sure, it's so far in the future!"
Oh puh-lease... did you just compare orbital trajectory calculations with the multi-variable analysis that is climate predictions?!
To take it to the extreme: no, we don't even know if there's gravity tmorrow because got might get drunk on afriday evening and decide to mess with us in the worst possible way. The past does not fortell the furure.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"did you just compare orbital trajectory calculations with the multi-variable analysis that is climate predictions?!"
Only to disprove your claim that "Projections for that long into the future just aren't reliable" -- SOME PROJECTIONS ARE.
So the debate becomes IS THIS PROJECTION RELIABLE?
To which I then I explain SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS PROJECTION and ask "Why do you know more than scientists?"
It's a solid case dude.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"So the debate becomes IS THIS PROJECTION RELIABLE? To which I then I explain SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS PROJECTION..."
Correction: *some* scientists agree with *that* projection. Others agree that it will happen alot faster than 50 years. Others say it won't happen at all. You can't just cherry pick the scientists that say what *you* want to hear and then go "this is the way it is, period".
I'm saying "maybe", just like P&T. Again, it is the *alarmism* they, and I, argue against.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
"*some* scientists agree with *that* projection. Others agree that it will happen alot faster than 50 years."
What the FUCK is IT?
Your argument now is "yes, global warming IS HAPPENING, but we don't know HOW SOON IT WILL BE A PROBLEM, so we SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING?"
SERIOUSLY, how IMMATURE CAN YOU GET?
IGNORING problems because you don't know EXACTLY when they'll come to a head is THE MOST IMMATURE MOVE I CAN THINK OF.
At least cling to DENYING GLOBAL WARMING, that way you're just WRONG.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Now who's doing a straw man, huh?
I never said "We shouldn't do anything" or anything of the kind. I specifically said we *should* do something just a few posts down. Did you forget that already?
You're screaming at P&T saying that they are doing straw men when they havn't but rather pointed out some rather glaring embarassments for the environmental hysteriacs. And now you're putting words in my mouth that are exactly the opposite of what I said below.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago 2
"I never said "We shouldn't do anything" or anything of the kind. I specifically said we *should* do something just a few posts down."
You said we should do something about POLLUTION, not GLOBAL WARMING. Did you forget your stance already?
"I think pollution myst stop... but not so much because of claimed AGW but because millions of people *die* each year from it."
"There are way bigger problems about than GW"
"we cannot say it's happening for certain"
Your argument is DO NOTHING ABOUT AGW!
directedchaos 2 years ago
Will you stop whacking at the straw man... I'm over here! Hello?! *waves arms*
No, I never said "We shouldn't do anything about global warming". That is your *faulty* extrapolation of what I said. I think there are bigger issues at hand than percieved AGW, but that does *not* exclude working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not in any way! In fact reducing pollution by combustibles will most likely also cut down on the greenhouse gases as well. So I never said "Let's ignore AGW".
mkarnerfors 2 years ago 3
"I think there are bigger issues at hand than percieved AGW"
Notice that?
PERCEIVED?
YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE GLOBAL WARMING AS A PROBLEM.
"In fact reducing pollution by combustibles will most likely also cut down on the greenhouse gases as well"
See, you're trying to appease by a SIDE EFFECT -- your AIM IS NOT TO HELP AGW, JUST POLLUTION.
That's my point: YOU IGNORE AGW. And why shouldn't you, if the jury is still out? I would.
The problem is, and this is where the debate lies: IT'S NOT.
directedchaos 2 years ago
"YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE GLOBAL WARMING AS A PROBLEM."
What? I never said that either. I said I think there are *bigger* problems to contend with, which implicitly states that AGW is a problem, albeit not as big as you want to see it.
Conversely, if I use your standard of arguing that if you don't put a specific problem as The Worst™ you're ignoring it, when you say...
"your AIM IS NOT TO HELP AGW, JUST POLLUTION"
...I could argue that you're ignoring millions of premature deaths.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago 2
Me: "YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE GLOBAL WARMING AS A PROBLEM."
You: "I never said that either."
... WTF is this argument about? Oh, now it's about YOU LYING ABOUT YOUR OWN FUCKING POSITION.
You: "saying that scientists *know* what cases global warming is bullshit."
If greenhouse gases causing global warming is bullshit, WHY FUCKING TRY TO FUCKING REDUCE THEM FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK?
You're so full of cognitive dissonance.
directedchaos 2 years ago
If you're going to try to "own" someone, you should at least first read what they said and try to understand the arguments, plus the implications of what they say. If you don't well then you're indeed fighting straw men.
This, that you are doing now, scremaing and hurling profanity... is not "owning"... it's just silly. There's nothing scientific about the way you argue. You're just yelling and blowing your top. Countering my claims with stuff in kind of "YOU