A very good example of state studies where you expect the scientist to get specific results or else he gets fucked is the UK government study of the ranking of drugs in order of its danger. The UK ofc wants tobacco/alcohol at the bottom and heroin/cocaine at the top, which of course isn't the case if you have a brain. This wasn't OK and the scientist got fired. The list is named "David Nutt's dangerous drug list" in a article by the guardian.
If you have any evidence that climatologists are doing what you say, doctoring their results to produce particular conclusions to increase funding then I think the burden is on you to table that. Specific accusations against particular researchers please . The fact that you object to research funded by taxation, which you are certainly entitled to do, does not speak to the accuracy of the conclusions of that research. You are capable of better than this, please try!
"a couple of volcanoes emit more than we can ever do"
I'm sorry but you just proved you are just mirroring propaganda you've been fed by denialists.
We emit more than 100 times more co2 per year than all aerial and sub aerial volcanoes do.
Global cooling was not a scientific theory. It was something the media made. Time comes to mind. We are running out of water- check out californias impending crisis. Especially with population increasing.
This is the most intellectually dishonest I've ever seen SM. The cycles of global temperatures occur over many hundreds of thousands and millions of years, the medieval warming period was a fraction of a degree. Climate change is expected to increase temperature by 2-5 degrees in the next 50-70 years.
You conveniently ignore deforestation and urban development, which is preventing plants from growing, and competition for sunlight will always be a limiting factor (w/r to plant density)
Global warming is clearly occurring as a result of man's addiction to fossil-fuels. Go and research "exponential growth" as well as the findings of the IPCC.
If Global Warming gets too bad, we get just dump a bunch of sulfur aerosols to cool the planet XD. It's a cheap solution, it would only cost a billion or two. So don't worry about it =D.
Well there is no denying that the weather is acting more and more unnaturally year to year, something is happening with nature and it is clearly not good. How much human activities are causing this is indeed debatable and certainly the state proposed solutions are far from desirable. Sadly it is used as another fear propaganda theme.
I've watched many videos that Stef has made. I enjoy much of what he says, but his argument is very weak. He says he isn't arguing against science, but he is. He says that govt funded science isn't trustworthy and so apparently is implying that corporate funded science is trustworthy. That argument is so pathetic that it isn't even funny.
@MarmaladeINFP, he implied that corporate science is trustworthy? just because he said something bad against government? Statements like this prove that many leftists are sheep who bray "he said something bad against government so he likes corporations! he said something bad against government so he likes corporations! baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
He argues for anarcho-capitalism where all science would be corporate-funded. I realize his utopian ideal of capitalism isn't what we presently have, but my point is that we must base our criticisms on reality. He criticizes our state government as it is and not how it could be acording to a utopian ideal. The same standard should be applied to capitalism.
I'm not criticiing Stef b/c I'm a lefty nor b/c he said something bad about the govt. I too am critical of govt.
He does argue for anarcho capitalism, but that is not synonymous with corporation funding. He is for anyone funding science, which can include private entrepreneurs, voluntary organizations/associations, communes, even private individuals.
I also do not think that corporations would even exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, because a corporation is really a private company with certain extra legal and government provided protections.
I understand his arguments. I've watched his videos and been to his website. I've studied these kinds of topics off and on for years. I understand and yet I still disagree. I'm all for ideals, but I'm also wary of criticizing reality on the basis of ideals... which is what I think Stef does. If he could point to real-world examples, then a real debate would be possible. Anarcho-capitalism without anything resembling corporations is a pipe dream, but no doubt a lovely pipe dream.
To be fair, Stef admits his ideal society is improbable. His view is that all progress is based on people striving for the improbable. I don't disagree with that attitude in principle, but I do disagree when it's applied to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is an improbable dream which could be deemed harmless except that I notice serious flaws that could cause the dream to become a nightmare. The probability of it going right seem small. The probability of it going wrong seem great.
According to a survey, 97% of climatology experts who are active researchers with peer-reviewed papers agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers, show that the conclusions suppor anthropogenic global warming. If you care about science, that is the science.
"According to a survey, 97% of climatology experts who are active researchers with peer-reviewed papers agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming."
bullshit. Most of those so called scientists are really UN people, politicos or activists.
A lot of real scientists, with actual degrees, by the way have actually come out against the so-called consensus. Many thousands of these scientists have even signed a petition against it.
I'm not against criticizing science. Science itself is the process of methodical skepticism.
Are scientists human with the same human flaws as everyone else? Yes. Is the scientific method designed to counter the flaws of human nature? Yes. Is it irrational to deny the consensus of active researchers working around the world in many different institutions funded by many different sources?
Yes. Are the scientists who signed petitions against AGW climatologists? Mostly not. Are the names on some of these petitions false? Yes. Are there any credible petitions that denounce the scientific support of AGW? Not that I'm aware of. All the petitions I've heard of have been discredited. Sometimes the scientists listed on the petitions don't even agree with the petitions.
Nah who cares about make poverty history the earth is warming up. Hence another problem will arise making everyone forget about global warming and the people that was for global warming wont even care about it any more.
you folks realise co2 isnt the main problem. though all data points to the fact that it is a nominal problem and this has been known since the early 1900's. i havent heard one person mention methane hydrate.has anyone looked into the science behind it? or do we just yell our opinions to as many people who will listen?
This smacks of ignoring the 8000 gigaton gorillaphant in the room, intentionally. You continuously rant about the funding of climate science research and studiously avoid mentioning the mega money manipulated by the banking industry and energy companies.
Get the state to investigate how the world's economy was crashed by the unregulated world of finance.
You are correct, it is not clear. You are not welcome for the hypocritical apology.
"hypocritical apology" I agree. There is quite likely more money funding propaganda against climate change theory than money funding climate change research. Yes, there is fear, but that isn't an argument against the scientific consensus of climatology scientists and peer-reviewed research. Money corrupts science no more than money corrupts everything. The state is no more corrupted than corporate power. Corporations in fact has more money than the state.
Stef: The way global warming is presented to the people is absolutly false and misleading, but the fact that global warming is ocurring is true. Of course it will increase vegetation, will not increase the sea level or melt the poles. The real problems are the unpredictable ones. We are not shure (the scientists, not me) of all the posible outcome of climate change.
Does trying to stop global warming from getting out of hand justify the state's violence and increase in power? Of course not, and I think it can't be stop anyway.
We'll have to be prepare for the changes and hope they wont be too bad.
Salute and keep doing all this fabulous stuff that you do on your page and here on youtube, you made me open my eyes and see many mistakes in my thinking and ideologies (many others I must still have).
I LOVE the way you present and the fact that you were so apologetic about what people perceived.... it's been so long since I've been able to laugh while hearing current issues being discussed.
I find people all too arrogant to assume that we could damage this planet strictly through co2 emissions for a number of reasons. There's the obvious choice in mentioning that plants in fact make oxygen out of it, then even what stef said about volcanoes. All I know is that the earth for years has worked in a similar way to the human body, if your body has an infection your temp goes up, so regardless if we caused it or not it's already happened and will happen.
Good video Stef, it was needed. However, to say we can't tell the weather/climate in 100 years may not be true. It may be possible to determine what the weather will be (in 100 years) based on the changing amounts in the Al Gore's bank account :-) There will be more positive data to support this predictive indicator with positive correlations going forward.
actualy ower Planet can not live without Co². ower plantz need Co² we exhale Co².
Still industrial polution is to be taken serius, not the CO² production, but the metal (mucury aluminum and other) polution in industrial exost is a real problem that no one wants to touch.
concerning the CO² theam, i wuld sugest saving Earths Lung, the Rainforest and Tundra, then CO² shuld be no problem.
Have to agree with cdal233. I had no trouble to understand that stefbot has nothing against science by itself. In fact, if you're able to think reasonably, this must be completly obvious after watching only the first one minute and twenty seconds. They who do believe stefbot is anti-science after 80 seconds of that video, they must be helplessly dumb f*cks worth not a second to convince.
I also think it was very immature of stefbot to excuse the other tube. I hate it when good guys appologize
Stef your last video was not too confusing to me, I got it right away. But then again, everything you said in this video just comes off as common sense.
If you look at the entire GISP ice core temperature data it does shows like in Al Gores movie temperature in the N.H. has been relatively flat for 800 years with a .5 C spike the last 100 years. However Al Gore an others stop at 800 or so years for good reason as the rest of the data show drastic temperature change as much as 2.5 degrees C in less than 200 years.
For example it shows 1 degree C higher 1000 yrs ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 yrs ago and 3 degree C higher 3300 yrs ago with many ups and downs in between. Note the polar bears are still here and the earth did not flood.
What is important is to look at the believers current global warming theory. Fact is an increase of a few 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temp in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 deg C change. Well the Global warming nuts then say the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers and reflection that in 50,000 feet tries to prove a 100ppm increase..
in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of 1 deg F (not proven). Well a few tenths of a degree F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the nuts have another trick by saying well CO2 has an amplifying effect over time from this small increase in temp and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased that are programmed to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2, go figure.
This is their theory, what the models are built to do and there only proof of man made global warming rests in these models. This is why these emails are so telling and disturbing to the believers as these models are failing to predict from one yr to the next much less 100s of years down the line. This is their theory and proof, these incomplete models. This is very important to understand.
I worked at a greenhouse for yrs and I understand that plants can handle and thrive in up to 1800 -2200 ppm of co2. the hotter the greenhouse gets coincides with the amounts of co2 that plants can use.(it rises)
We are currently at 250-350 ppm.
I still have not seen a real world experiment(not a computer model) that shows that pumping in a buch of co2 to a closed atmosphere with a light shining on it will raise the temp.
Actually, the oxygen given off by plants comes from splitting water molecules to harness electrons for photosynthesis, not from the CO2 they fix, contrary to popular belief. Sorry, nerd moment.
Stef great video. It takes a lot to make yourself vulnerable and admit fault. I think the main problem with your first video on this subject is you let emotions over take the logic of your point. Much like the state uses emotional fear of our children or security to expand itself and its power.
Trees grow too slow and absorb less co2 then we push into the system.
We take oil it from porous rock miles deep, use bacteria and steam to extract it and finally dump the leftover co2 into the atmosphere.
You really think that is harmless and without consequences? I am no fan of governments either and hate the socially unjust carbon tax , which is just another wealth transfer and state control mechanism.
Stick to subjects you understand next time, too much backwards reasoning in this one :(.
You want "proof" that trees grow slow, ever seen one grow un in a week to maturity..a month...a year? Compared that to what your car uses up? Not to mention the amound of treed burned straight to hell to make room for cattle and farmland.
Proof is al around you, easy to be found. You been hiding under a rock or something?
And look if you don't want to see what right in front of you, then there is no point in me pre chewing you food...I ain't going to amuse you.
The problem with making the oceans more acidic is that is alters the bottom of the food chain, and it takes a long time for the whole system to readjust to a new normal. We are talking about a food chain already under huge pressures from overfishing. It will cause food supply issues for many around the world.
Also your argument that more co2 in the air means more plants. Well, we are culling them faster then they can grow, thus the co2 won't be sucked up the plants as you suggest!
The ice surrounding the north pole is melting far faster then anyone anticipated. This will have an additional heating effect on the whole system (less reflection of sunlight from the ice for example).
But this is not what matters most, its the momentum the process is gaining and the knock on effects. We will survive a warmer earth no problem.
Most co2 however is absorbed by plankton in the sea and dissolved in the sea water, making it more acidic.
This isn't scare mongering, but logic reasoning and facts that can be verified.
As for the logic surrounding the timings, your lack of understanding the system here is hurting your case.
Big systems react slow, have a capacity to absorb a lot until a threshold is reached. Just like one state applied evil thing to a individual person doesn't cause a country wide riot.
The system is getting saturated which can be seen in accelerated warming, models constantly lag reality in this respect.
I can easily predict that the summer in Belgium next year will be on average warmer then the temperature in Brussels tomorrow.
Why? I posses some knowledge of the system we are talking about. The earth will be closer to the sun etc and many details that have opposite effect are marginal compared to this single fact.
Right now, temperatures are rising in many places in the world where there are high risks of cascading positive feedbacks.
"massive expansion of state control" - Now from what I understand the idea is that we'd burn less coal and use more renewable resources, moving off gasoline as soon as possible. Now, maybe you think it's part of your freedom to drive a car using gasoline and no one can ever ask that it change, or that your freedom to burn coal would be hurt. I really don't see what's so radical.
renewable resources cannot handle the amount of power we use. It's not practicle. Figure out a source that can and we will all jump on board until then don't cripple this country further with feel good politics. Oh and Al Gore wastes more fossile fuels then 7 american families. I thought he was for cap and trade.....Oh yeah maybe because 1 he has a stake in making money from it and 2 he is rich and can afford it.
That first statement is a lie, look at the MIT paper about how 200ZJ of power is easily obtained with our current geothermal technology. The entire world today uses 0.5ZJ in a year, renewable energy can easily handle the power we use, it's more than practical, it's necessary. He probably does, and I thought he was too, I'm far more interested in the cap part of that. So you're doggin on him for being a capitalist? He has a point of view and makes money off it, that alone doesn't make him wrong
I'll check this "Paper". But they are all still expensive and out of reach for most Common people. I know a few people who got rid of their solar panels because the cost to fix them and other parts were to much. make it affordable. I'm not dogging on Gore for being a capitalist but for pushing his own agenda to better himself. Which is something I hate in all politicians. They might as well name it the Give al gore money bill. I like truth.
So basicly you're mad at Gore for being greedy? And if you were able to run around the country crying "lower taxes" and making millions you wouldn't do the same? Nothing is going to be better for him if he has to pay these same new taxes, and if he's using so much more fuel then he's going to pay even more taxes. So are you saying that the price of something necessary should play a factor in if we do it or not? Not if it's the right or wrong thing to do? I want to do what's right and needed.
You know what I rewrote my post. I was going to go into detail but it's not worth it your obvoiusly an Al Gore Fan boy. Why else would you stick up for him so much. Which is really sad because I'm like 99.9% sure he wouldn't recognize you from a hole in the wall. Well if Global warming science is right all we will be doing is stalling the inevidable. I do find it funny that The Repubs use terrorism to pass B.S. laws and now the Dems are following suite with the same style scare tactics.
Umm no, I understand that he is motived much like every single person in this country, by money, and there's more money in keeping the system the way it is now and not have it be changed. Al Gore is asking for it to change, and as a result getting criticized for it in the exact same way he characterized his opponents. So your line of thought is, who cares if one day we won't be able to go outside without some kind of suit on, it's inevitable and we should just give up on fixing it if it's hard
The problem is that there is no inherent "rightness", those kind of moral statements are subjective value judgments. If you value something great, invest in it, put your labor and your time into it, but don't authorize some institutional bully to go around forcing people to do things by threat of violence. That kind of institutionalized coercion is very destructive to social order, and I have a preference for personal liberty, as I'm sure you do as well.
My previous posting was about Albert Einstein, A scientist who did a bit more in his spare time, early on, than drink Mai Tais in an IGWCOCC, cnonference centre bar!
I think I got the acronym for the, deep breath..Intergovermental..oh whats the use!? How many Climatologists does it take to screw in a energy saving lightbulb? Apparently, over a thousand..
stefbot, The original video didn't phase me personally becasue I know where you'recomming from -- so to speak.
That said, the scientific method applied to reason. Scientific reasoning. Welcome replication. Welcome falsification. Not limited to scientific subject matter. Scientific reasoning can be applied to any subject matter. In it's widest scope requires fully integrated honesty.
Al Gore (former Vice President of the USA) and David Blood (former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management Company) carbon trading company is called "Blood & Gore"
How can they take ice core samples thousands of years old and imply climate change is man made? Were there that many humans on earth 1000 years ago?
Earth's human population is still pretty scarce when you look at the world as a whole. I've traveled the whole world and have gone hundreds of miles without even seeing another human being.
I am pro-global warming, too. I'm 1000+ ft above sea level, Its like a Lex Luthor land scheme, my property will be worth tremendously more if the coasts became the reefs.
Its so absurd to talk about water covering the continents.
True. There is not enough in the caps to create a deep enough level to cover all of the continents completely and THIS is also a good reason why the "Noah's flood" acct is impossible. To cover everything would have taken much more water than the atmosphere could even hold. Mt. Everest? hahahah
So, why do you think my name is ironic? Because you actually believed my post literally? tsk.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
Benjamin Franklin - these people will never look at the facts . it is amazing how you can look at the temperature each day for the last 10 years and the average each year has been lower. the earth is cooling! but its not that they are ignorant it is that they refuse to look at the data! it is a religion to them and this religion has been proven to be false 100%
Hmm..thinks..Add goverment to evolution..get eugenics, add goverment to climate science..get global warming hysteria. Is there anything the goverment can't mess up?
1. how do you know i cannot answer this question? I ask for Molyneux' argument POV on this. I have my own.
2. rather than wasting everyone's time, would you please just enlighten everyone who might have similar questions - if you know stefbot's POV, that is?
@k0n14k Like terrorism it instills fear into people. I.e. we quickly have to pass this law before its too late. It gives the government an excuse to spend massive amounts of money in "green energy".
You're kidding right? You say "I cannot judge the science" and then you go on and start saying stuff like "there is no way they can do this this and this"
I watched something on the Discovery channel about this. And they said that the polar ice is about half the thickness it was 100 yrs ago. Now, they also say that if the polar ice caps melt, water levels throughout the world will rise so much that coastal cities will be under water. So, why are our coast lines about where they were back then? I think Stefan's point about money being taken at the point of a gun should be given great consideration.
If the polar ice melts it would not raise water levels significantly because ice is water. Only the parts of ice that are above sea level would raise it. Instead, what it would do is, it would introduce cold unsalted water into the Atlantic ocean and that would disturb and eventually stop its current. The hot air that this current is spreading over Europe, which maintains its moderate climate, would stop coming in and Europe would go into another ice age.
I'm not an alarmist myself but do believe in analyzing data and issues presented by politicians & experts - not to take information at face value too. Lets be honest, there is always the possibly of personal or social agendas being implemented at the cost of taxpayers.
Recommend reading "Tutankhamun Prophecies, by Maurice Cotterell; Appendix 1: The Sun" which has detailed information on SunSpots cycles & its relationship to earth climate change.
I think that Stef is combining the arguments for human contribution to global warming with certain statist "solutions" to the problem and then being skeptical to the former due to the fact that the latter is obviously invalid.
It seems to me that one could accept that humans are contributing to global warming, but prefer free market solutions to the issue.
Hi Stefan. I appreciate your scepticism regarding climate research but what if climate change IS indeed man-made, catastrophic and only preventable by what you call an enormous expansion of state power? What then? Please speak to this possibility. Would really like to hear your thoughts on it.
Yer.. know, Albert Einstein Did his groundwork for The general theory of relativity while holding down a office job.Perhaps All those Climatologists and Black hole twitchers, should get a proper job. Working for money stolen from people must be a terrible burden for the sensitive psyches of scientists.
Quite Right! All scientists should get proper jobs such as cesspool cleaners and coal miners. Now those are proper jobs. We should all do just as our fathers did before us, labor hard, drink hard, die worn out, that's a proper life for a man. Try and advance the human condition with science? Preposterous! What has science ever done for us? Utterly useless science is. Nothing good ever came from science. Science? BAH, HUMBUG!
Well..scientists like Dr Mengle' did a lot of "useful" work torturing jew's, and their research did help in the development of ejection seats for fighter pilots, and medicines for motion sickness, so guess what, State funded science CAN be useful..too much? Perhaps a nice productive office job is better than trying to support the bullying of the 3rd world into not developing? ThomasCrapper didnt have ta drink himself to death to invent an alternative to the cesspoolThe cesspool IS State Largess!
Thank u Signzit! I saw a doc recently about the mental anguish, the stresses and strains, State funded scientists are undergoing, trying to understand the nature of black holes..I feel their pain, especially when I look for jobs in the black hole of our economy. Wow it sucks!
I had a feeling that may come up! he was in quite a skilled, probably often time consuming, white collar job. In a future anarco soc, people who do a similar job to patent examiners, sound quite useful. obviously it gives you time to come up with Relativity!Full time employees of CERN, should get jobs in washing machine factories phaps!And stop taking all that stolen state money!
This video made me think of your video of the Joy in Humility. It takes humility to admit errors so thanks for this reply.
I still don't agree with your conclusions on global warming, but I do agree with your methodology.
I don't think governments want to 'order scientific results' that indicate the existence of global warming or climate change, because that would mean that they had to invest in preventing these things (remember the news item that you mentioned for the previous video).
This has to be the worst video you've ever made. Apart from the fact that you have no scientific credentials to make such claims about global warming, you effectively shot yourself in the foot here because almost all the arguments you've made against the state are also applicable in the case against capitalism.
Don't confuse a true free market capitalism, with State Capitalism. Really how many scientific credentials do Barack Obama have..answer none. He does have his finger on the trigger of State power tho..and when he and others in the gov point the gun..those in the way dance to the tune they choose. Stef doesn't need scientific credentials to point that little fact out.
You're right about Obama's lack of scientific credentials. However, people who do have such credentials, namely scientists in the field, agree almost universally that the human activity has contributed significantly to global warming.
And the argument that government funding of the global warming research has somehow contributed to scientific bias is laughable when you consider the fact that USA stands as the only country that has not ratified Kyoto Protocol and has no intention to do so.
hmmmmmmmmm stef argument about they dont know climate prediction over a year.
is it not possible that climate gos up and own so its much more difficult to predict whats happening over a year than whats happening over 100 years statisticly.
From Fora TV, Nobel Laureate Henry Pollack on "How Sure Are Scientists About Global Warming?" watch?v=InPbrTpSHFo
Also from Fora TV, Steven Levitt on his book with cheap ways to counter Global Warming "Freakonomics: Three Geoengineering Solutions to Global Warming" watch?v=6RsrRpjAGi8
From YouTube, potholer54 arguing when and why co2 is and isn't relevant to Climate change. "5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?" watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
I watched potholer54's series and it was the first coherent and non-political thing about this issue that I've seen. Certainly changed my view about a lot of stuff (which was relieving).
Perhaps the problem is not the science but the people who tell about the science.
After all, the politicians lie about so many things that it is perfectly understandable to doubt their word on this issue.
I'm not ashamed of being paranoid about them. =)
But this is a BIG problem for the science community.
You say at 10:57 'The government is paying huge amounts of money to a particular group and that this group is churning back increases in disaster scenarios and attacks on skeptics'.
Really? The US is the #1 world polluter, it failed to ratify the Kyoto Accord and by your argument US scientists, since the 2000 election should have been "churning out" massive reams of data refuting any possibility of an anthropogenic cause for Global Warming.
Yet despite all that Conservative money, Bush, and governmental pressure, the opposite is true. Science continues to claim that Global Warming is anthropogenically rooted.
What seems to me to be the facts, contradicts the result I would expect to see if your argument (On this one point) were valid.
In short, you seem (on the face of it, on this one point) to refute your own argument. Under The Big Oil, Big Business, Big Conservative, US Government of George Bush, there should have been 'churned out' ample 'Proof' that Global Warming is false. The establishment whose vested interests are furthered by denying Global Warming would have demanded just such 'churn' from Bush.
So where is it? Why did US scientists ignore the gun and publish articles counter to the government interests?
Oerhaps it shows that Politicians and thier corporate friends have found it advantagious to play both ends off against the middle..ie the middle class. Get all the nice productive people to be distracted by a "scientific" cause celebre, and away from the abuses of State power?
You say you're not qualified to understand the data, then start expressing opinions on it (cycles of temperature, related to sunspots, volcanoes produce more CO2, etc.)
If governments are backing global warming research and it is therefore false, why are governments not doing anything significant to slow it down or stop it?
You don't have to apologise,the global warming agenda is used as a political tool,the temperatures on earth rise and fall every couple of hundred years and us 'smart' species just has to get used to it,people always try prove and justify GW but all you have to tell them is that if people were to leave this planet(Oxygen might run out) climate change would still occur,end of story.
Anthropogenic global warming is real, and the state can't stop it unless they take us back to the stone age. As fossil fuels become more scarce, prices will rise. We will move to alternatives. And the Earth will be 1 or 2 degrees warmer for a while.
Or thake the worlds population back to 500 Million. Which is, apparently, what many of the Elites would like to do. However, hasn't the term 'Global Warming' been replaced by the term 'Climate Change' because no rise in temperture has been seen over the last 10 years?
I think the political involvement in this important issue has divided people and created mistrust of the data.
I live in the Alps and we can clearly see global warming picking up pace over the past 30 years with our glaciers melting away.
When you said more CO2 creates more plant life to absorb it, how will we get more plant life if we don't allow it to grow? (deforestation) The Carbon Credit program has industry pay farmers to grow CO2 absorbing grasslands to offset their carbon pollution.
Like most of Stef's viewers, I am an anarchist/voluntarist. I fully agree with Stef that the state could never solve the problem and would cause great harm in attempting to do so.
However, I've noticed a trend in libertarian circles toward denying established science when it's perceived to be inconvenient with libertarian philosophy.
Maybe I'm giving to much credit, but it seems to me that most modern scientists are passionate in the extreme towards honestly representing scientific truth.
2. Second hand smoke; many libertarians have denied the harmful effects because they don't agree with smoking laws.
3. SOME libertarians deny evolution because they link it to "Social Darwinism".
I'm not saying that libertarianism is anti-science, far from it. I'm simply saying that many libertarians pick and choose science that they believe to somehow support libertarianism.
Yes it is. This is not even a point of debate among scientists that deny any human cause for or negative effects of global warming. It is measurable fact.
"Evolution as far as humans has never been proven..."
Yes it has, at least as far as anything can be proven. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. EVERY fossil ever found that was not a dead end is a "missing link."
the Earth has been cooling for ten years, . The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
That is the reason why they fudged the numbers. This is what climate gate has shown, it is in their conversations, in their code, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued
""the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory""
What how the meaning of words change when not deliberately misrepresented: ""Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
1. The truth is that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC 'CONSENSUS'. It is NOT a slam-dunk that mankind is causing the climate to change.
2. As a libertarian, it comes down to whether you're on private or public property. Bars/restaurants/airplanes/places of business/ect. are PRIVATE places no one is forced to be. Govt really has no legitimate right to ban smoking in private places. Public, OK, there is a case.
3. Evolution is still a theory. Makes sense to me, but not really a big deal.
1. The earth is warming. Even scientists not of the majority opinion acknowledge this. And the sun has cooled significantly in recent years. Sunspot have not been this inactivate for almost a century, solar wind pressure is at a 50yr low, and the sun is actually dimmer than it was 10 years ago.
2. I'm against the government getting involved at all. As I said before, I'm just pointing out a trend I see among my libertarian peers, who I usually trust to present the most objective case.
1. Still debateable. I've seen many who say the warming stopped 10 years ago. In any event, trying to link it strictly to mankind is very dubious.
2. Well, I mostly agree, but a valid point about smoke infringing on someone else's person exists. Private, enclosed areas are a slam-dunk: if you don't like it leave. However, do I have the right to blow smoke in your face? If I have 100 smoker friends over for a bbq, is it cool if our combined smoke drifts into your backyard nonsmoker bbq?
3. Gravity is still a theory. In scientific terms a theory isn't a hypothesis or guess. There is no theory, whatsoever, that has been so thoroughly researched or has a greater body of corroborating evidence as evolution.
A common misconception is that scientific theories eventually turn into scientific laws when more data is collected. In reality, scientific theory will ALWAYS remain a scientific theory, and is no more rudimentary than a scientific law.
My take on the evolution thing is that practically, for the vast majority of folks, what does it matter what one believes about this? I know a big deal is made about it in the public schools (solution: end public schooling), but, really, when was the last time evolution played a significant part in YOUR private life (job interview, etc.)? For non-scientists, its pretty inconsequential, in daily life.
Maybe it's a plea to authority, but I think that such an enormous amount of data, despite the state funding in the majority of the research in it's collection, lends more than enough weight to one end of this scale. At any rate, at least enough weight as to not be discredited by amateur, internet 'scientist' trying to tip the scales with conspiracy theories.
Scientists have serious interests of their own. As Stef says, they only get paid if they make conclusions that support the government agenda. Their research has serious flaws (the 800yr lag being the most significant IMO) that I don't recognize as objective science.
I may not be an expert on the climate but I do have a degree in statistics.
"Scientists have serious interests of their own. As Stef says, they only get paid if they make conclusions that support the government agenda."
Granted, but meaningless, because the same could be said of opposing research.
"Their research has serious flaws"
Sure, but you'll find similar flaws in any field with this vast body of research.
If a few cherry-picked snippets invalidates millions of man-hours of research, then evolution, general relatively, and quantum mechanics are also invalid.
I can entertain this idea, of thinking humans aren't the cause of global warming, which lets most of these people you speak of forget about doing anything to change their negative impact on our planet. I would suggest to these people that even if it's not our fault, can we please do something about it anyway? Can we please reduce the greenhouse inducing CO2 in our atmosphere and try to save our glaciers and therefore our watersheds for over a billion people. Can we still work towards a balance?
If it's not our fault I don't see why we would want to change the natural cycle of nature. And even if we did want to, I don't think we can control it anymore than we can control gravity.
Well that's a real can't-do attitude. I didn't suggest we "control it", I suggest we stop doing harm to it. If we know our planet's surface is warming, and we know CO2 traps more heat making it even warmer still, why not reduce our CO2 output? Why not try to save many species including ourselves from the ill effects of a gradually warming home planet?
Because we can't control gravity? Really, that's a good reason to do nothing and wait to see just how bad it gets?
Well, now you say that we DO cause global warming, but your first comment was based on the assumption that we "aren't the cause of global warming".
I don't believe for one second in the man made global warming, but I do realize that humans damage nature my polluting our waters and lands and that we should take hand care of this. The problem is that big government and anti-capitalist regulation is only going to make it worse.
If you don't "believe" the reality that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere and that in turn traps more heat that would otherwise escape our planet, then you're not really educated enough on the subject to be taken seriously at all. I don't mean to insult you, but it's pretty basic grade-school science classroom stuff. Our fossil fuel burning energy plants produce it, so does most all of our manufacturing, our beef cattle, our automobiles, etc. Then we deforest to boot.
What is don't believe is your unquestioned accept of the man made global warming religion and I am not going to discuss this with you as it will be a waste of my time. If you want to know my reasons for not believing in your religion please read my comment to
Wow, if only facts could make a religion, wouldn't that be something special.
No offense intended but you might want to take a few seconds to proof read what you write so that you don't look like an idiot. I'm sure you're not an idiot, just in some kind of hurry or something:)
I only see one error (is/I) but English it only my fourth language.
Man made global warming is not a fact, it is a politically biased theory. I mentioned my main reason to Cailwyn (800 years lag) which is my main reason to reject the claim, but it's not really a subject that can be debated throughly within the 500 words limit.
(It's ok to say English is your second language, but saying it's your fourth if it is in fact your second is kind of lame. Maybe it IS your fourth, but if it's your second....yea - lame.)
Stef, you're a philosopher, not a climate scientist. The global warming on Jupiter has a fundamentally different cause than Earth, you can Google it. (If I remember correctly, it's going through a summer.) Yes, in theory more carbon dioxide would mean more oxygen, but plants can only breathe so much. If there was an excess in oxygen, humans wouldn't simply breathe more to accommodate it, and deforestation doesn't help it. Maybe there's a reason most scientists believe in global warming.
We have many, many weather monitoring stations on earth and the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming. But Stefbot is skeptical, fair enough.
But we send a few probes around Jupiter and look at it with telescopes and there may be some evidence of warming. Stefbot accepts it uncritically.
I would consider this strong evidence of bias. Stefbot should definitely get that examined.
A very good example of state studies where you expect the scientist to get specific results or else he gets fucked is the UK government study of the ranking of drugs in order of its danger. The UK ofc wants tobacco/alcohol at the bottom and heroin/cocaine at the top, which of course isn't the case if you have a brain. This wasn't OK and the scientist got fired. The list is named "David Nutt's dangerous drug list" in a article by the guardian.
onaqui 2 months ago
Environmentalist left = socialist morons who don't know anything about science.
LogicalFlawDetector 3 months ago
If you have any evidence that climatologists are doing what you say, doctoring their results to produce particular conclusions to increase funding then I think the burden is on you to table that. Specific accusations against particular researchers please . The fact that you object to research funded by taxation, which you are certainly entitled to do, does not speak to the accuracy of the conclusions of that research. You are capable of better than this, please try!
offramp100 9 months ago
"a couple of volcanoes emit more than we can ever do"
I'm sorry but you just proved you are just mirroring propaganda you've been fed by denialists.
We emit more than 100 times more co2 per year than all aerial and sub aerial volcanoes do.
Global cooling was not a scientific theory. It was something the media made. Time comes to mind. We are running out of water- check out californias impending crisis. Especially with population increasing.
Your scientific illiteracy is embarrassing.
hippydude89 11 months ago
This is the most intellectually dishonest I've ever seen SM. The cycles of global temperatures occur over many hundreds of thousands and millions of years, the medieval warming period was a fraction of a degree. Climate change is expected to increase temperature by 2-5 degrees in the next 50-70 years.
You conveniently ignore deforestation and urban development, which is preventing plants from growing, and competition for sunlight will always be a limiting factor (w/r to plant density)
Teslastyle 11 months ago
You fucking right-wing kook. Typical of America.
Global warming is clearly occurring as a result of man's addiction to fossil-fuels. Go and research "exponential growth" as well as the findings of the IPCC.
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
If Global Warming gets too bad, we get just dump a bunch of sulfur aerosols to cool the planet XD. It's a cheap solution, it would only cost a billion or two. So don't worry about it =D.
fcb955ff 1 year ago
I thought a breed a snake died out because the temperate shifted upwards.
FantasyFan400 1 year ago
ommmggg soooo booring i lost interest after the first minute blah blah blah idc bout global warming anymoree lol
legacy221 1 year ago
GREEN. HOUSE. GASES.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
Well there is no denying that the weather is acting more and more unnaturally year to year, something is happening with nature and it is clearly not good. How much human activities are causing this is indeed debatable and certainly the state proposed solutions are far from desirable. Sadly it is used as another fear propaganda theme.
Nebbyker 1 year ago
I've watched many videos that Stef has made. I enjoy much of what he says, but his argument is very weak. He says he isn't arguing against science, but he is. He says that govt funded science isn't trustworthy and so apparently is implying that corporate funded science is trustworthy. That argument is so pathetic that it isn't even funny.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP, he implied that corporate science is trustworthy? just because he said something bad against government? Statements like this prove that many leftists are sheep who bray "he said something bad against government so he likes corporations! he said something bad against government so he likes corporations! baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
He argues for anarcho-capitalism where all science would be corporate-funded. I realize his utopian ideal of capitalism isn't what we presently have, but my point is that we must base our criticisms on reality. He criticizes our state government as it is and not how it could be acording to a utopian ideal. The same standard should be applied to capitalism.
I'm not criticiing Stef b/c I'm a lefty nor b/c he said something bad about the govt. I too am critical of govt.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
He does argue for anarcho capitalism, but that is not synonymous with corporation funding. He is for anyone funding science, which can include private entrepreneurs, voluntary organizations/associations, communes, even private individuals.
I also do not think that corporations would even exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, because a corporation is really a private company with certain extra legal and government provided protections.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
I understand his arguments. I've watched his videos and been to his website. I've studied these kinds of topics off and on for years. I understand and yet I still disagree. I'm all for ideals, but I'm also wary of criticizing reality on the basis of ideals... which is what I think Stef does. If he could point to real-world examples, then a real debate would be possible. Anarcho-capitalism without anything resembling corporations is a pipe dream, but no doubt a lovely pipe dream.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
To be fair, Stef admits his ideal society is improbable. His view is that all progress is based on people striving for the improbable. I don't disagree with that attitude in principle, but I do disagree when it's applied to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is an improbable dream which could be deemed harmless except that I notice serious flaws that could cause the dream to become a nightmare. The probability of it going right seem small. The probability of it going wrong seem great.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
According to a survey, 97% of climatology experts who are active researchers with peer-reviewed papers agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers, show that the conclusions suppor anthropogenic global warming. If you care about science, that is the science.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
"According to a survey, 97% of climatology experts who are active researchers with peer-reviewed papers agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming."
bullshit. Most of those so called scientists are really UN people, politicos or activists.
A lot of real scientists, with actual degrees, by the way have actually come out against the so-called consensus. Many thousands of these scientists have even signed a petition against it.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
Besides, Climategate has proved a lot of the so-called consensus claims to be lies.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
I'm not against criticizing science. Science itself is the process of methodical skepticism.
Are scientists human with the same human flaws as everyone else? Yes. Is the scientific method designed to counter the flaws of human nature? Yes. Is it irrational to deny the consensus of active researchers working around the world in many different institutions funded by many different sources?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
...continued...
Yes. Are the scientists who signed petitions against AGW climatologists? Mostly not. Are the names on some of these petitions false? Yes. Are there any credible petitions that denounce the scientific support of AGW? Not that I'm aware of. All the petitions I've heard of have been discredited. Sometimes the scientists listed on the petitions don't even agree with the petitions.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
The world has gone to this
Global Cooling
Get lost lets get rid of CFC's
Shove over lets make poverty history
Nah who cares about make poverty history the earth is warming up. Hence another problem will arise making everyone forget about global warming and the people that was for global warming wont even care about it any more.
dancansss 1 year ago
I understood your point in that video perfectly well.
In fact, it was brilliant - watch what people DO. If they REALLY believed AGW was an imminent catastrophe, they would change their own habits.
Sheryl Crow's TP comment is definitely the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Why won't we just lick our asses like the dogs do - they can teach us a lot about 'reducing our carbon footprint'.
Ok, so we can't reach them - guess we'll have to go to the can in pairs!
beggarz 2 years ago
you folks realise co2 isnt the main problem. though all data points to the fact that it is a nominal problem and this has been known since the early 1900's. i havent heard one person mention methane hydrate.has anyone looked into the science behind it? or do we just yell our opinions to as many people who will listen?
me28andholding 2 years ago
This smacks of ignoring the 8000 gigaton gorillaphant in the room, intentionally. You continuously rant about the funding of climate science research and studiously avoid mentioning the mega money manipulated by the banking industry and energy companies.
Get the state to investigate how the world's economy was crashed by the unregulated world of finance.
You are correct, it is not clear. You are not welcome for the hypocritical apology.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENT
"hypocritical apology" I agree. There is quite likely more money funding propaganda against climate change theory than money funding climate change research. Yes, there is fear, but that isn't an argument against the scientific consensus of climatology scientists and peer-reviewed research. Money corrupts science no more than money corrupts everything. The state is no more corrupted than corporate power. Corporations in fact has more money than the state.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Stef: The way global warming is presented to the people is absolutly false and misleading, but the fact that global warming is ocurring is true. Of course it will increase vegetation, will not increase the sea level or melt the poles. The real problems are the unpredictable ones. We are not shure (the scientists, not me) of all the posible outcome of climate change.
chicalleje 2 years ago
Does trying to stop global warming from getting out of hand justify the state's violence and increase in power? Of course not, and I think it can't be stop anyway.
We'll have to be prepare for the changes and hope they wont be too bad.
Salute and keep doing all this fabulous stuff that you do on your page and here on youtube, you made me open my eyes and see many mistakes in my thinking and ideologies (many others I must still have).
I will foverver thank you for that.
chicalleje 2 years ago
I LOVE the way you present and the fact that you were so apologetic about what people perceived.... it's been so long since I've been able to laugh while hearing current issues being discussed.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
I find people all too arrogant to assume that we could damage this planet strictly through co2 emissions for a number of reasons. There's the obvious choice in mentioning that plants in fact make oxygen out of it, then even what stef said about volcanoes. All I know is that the earth for years has worked in a similar way to the human body, if your body has an infection your temp goes up, so regardless if we caused it or not it's already happened and will happen.
pacifistanarchist138 2 years ago
Good video Stef, it was needed. However, to say we can't tell the weather/climate in 100 years may not be true. It may be possible to determine what the weather will be (in 100 years) based on the changing amounts in the Al Gore's bank account :-) There will be more positive data to support this predictive indicator with positive correlations going forward.
LibertyJedi 2 years ago
nice
philwarinsky 2 years ago
actualy ower Planet can not live without Co². ower plantz need Co² we exhale Co².
Still industrial polution is to be taken serius, not the CO² production, but the metal (mucury aluminum and other) polution in industrial exost is a real problem that no one wants to touch.
concerning the CO² theam, i wuld sugest saving Earths Lung, the Rainforest and Tundra, then CO² shuld be no problem.
But who am i to know enything.
sorry 4 spelling :-(
rechtschreibteufel 2 years ago 6
There is legitimate science on both sides of the debate, and there's complete bullshit on both sides of the debate.
Anyone who thinks Stef is being anti-science in this video, is not being rational.
I think it's safe to say that government throwing around free money has once again distorted what should be an honest and discussion.
The "Environmentalist left" need to calm down a bit. The display of anger and fear isn't helping your case.
Claytrainor 2 years ago 2
Great comment!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Have to agree with cdal233. I had no trouble to understand that stefbot has nothing against science by itself. In fact, if you're able to think reasonably, this must be completly obvious after watching only the first one minute and twenty seconds. They who do believe stefbot is anti-science after 80 seconds of that video, they must be helplessly dumb f*cks worth not a second to convince.
I also think it was very immature of stefbot to excuse the other tube. I hate it when good guys appologize
Sopranelsker 2 years ago 2
The best term to use for the global warming, climate change, sky is falling, et al fear mongering agenda is manbearpig.
givemeabreakhere 2 years ago 2
not sure how accurate of an analogy this is, but this sounds a lot like "doctor shopping".
quicksno 2 years ago
Stef your last video was not too confusing to me, I got it right away. But then again, everything you said in this video just comes off as common sense.
cdal233 2 years ago
If you look at the entire GISP ice core temperature data it does shows like in Al Gores movie temperature in the N.H. has been relatively flat for 800 years with a .5 C spike the last 100 years. However Al Gore an others stop at 800 or so years for good reason as the rest of the data show drastic temperature change as much as 2.5 degrees C in less than 200 years.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
For example it shows 1 degree C higher 1000 yrs ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 yrs ago and 3 degree C higher 3300 yrs ago with many ups and downs in between. Note the polar bears are still here and the earth did not flood.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
What is important is to look at the believers current global warming theory. Fact is an increase of a few 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temp in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 deg C change. Well the Global warming nuts then say the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers and reflection that in 50,000 feet tries to prove a 100ppm increase..
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of 1 deg F (not proven). Well a few tenths of a degree F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the nuts have another trick by saying well CO2 has an amplifying effect over time from this small increase in temp and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased that are programmed to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2, go figure.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is their theory, what the models are built to do and there only proof of man made global warming rests in these models. This is why these emails are so telling and disturbing to the believers as these models are failing to predict from one yr to the next much less 100s of years down the line. This is their theory and proof, these incomplete models. This is very important to understand.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I worked at a greenhouse for yrs and I understand that plants can handle and thrive in up to 1800 -2200 ppm of co2. the hotter the greenhouse gets coincides with the amounts of co2 that plants can use.(it rises)
We are currently at 250-350 ppm.
I still have not seen a real world experiment(not a computer model) that shows that pumping in a buch of co2 to a closed atmosphere with a light shining on it will raise the temp.
buddcinder 2 years ago
Actually, the oxygen given off by plants comes from splitting water molecules to harness electrons for photosynthesis, not from the CO2 they fix, contrary to popular belief. Sorry, nerd moment.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Stef, you said "anthropomorphic" instead of "anthropogenic".
Sincerely, "that guy"
absurdparadox 2 years ago
Stef great video. It takes a lot to make yourself vulnerable and admit fault. I think the main problem with your first video on this subject is you let emotions over take the logic of your point. Much like the state uses emotional fear of our children or security to expand itself and its power.
Herv3 2 years ago 2
Trees grow too slow and absorb less co2 then we push into the system.
We take oil it from porous rock miles deep, use bacteria and steam to extract it and finally dump the leftover co2 into the atmosphere.
You really think that is harmless and without consequences? I am no fan of governments either and hate the socially unjust carbon tax , which is just another wealth transfer and state control mechanism.
Stick to subjects you understand next time, too much backwards reasoning in this one :(.
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
do you have any sources for all these scary claims?
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
You want "proof" that trees grow slow, ever seen one grow un in a week to maturity..a month...a year? Compared that to what your car uses up? Not to mention the amound of treed burned straight to hell to make room for cattle and farmland.
Proof is al around you, easy to be found. You been hiding under a rock or something?
And look if you don't want to see what right in front of you, then there is no point in me pre chewing you food...I ain't going to amuse you.
Look for yourself!
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
so for the readers digest version of your answer:
you have no proof.
that's cool.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
still doesn't prove carbon is a pollutant. deforestation is bad you are right bout that but cap and trade and carbon tax has nothing to do with it.
godseyeview 2 years ago
The problem with making the oceans more acidic is that is alters the bottom of the food chain, and it takes a long time for the whole system to readjust to a new normal. We are talking about a food chain already under huge pressures from overfishing. It will cause food supply issues for many around the world.
Also your argument that more co2 in the air means more plants. Well, we are culling them faster then they can grow, thus the co2 won't be sucked up the plants as you suggest!
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
The ice surrounding the north pole is melting far faster then anyone anticipated. This will have an additional heating effect on the whole system (less reflection of sunlight from the ice for example).
But this is not what matters most, its the momentum the process is gaining and the knock on effects. We will survive a warmer earth no problem.
Most co2 however is absorbed by plankton in the sea and dissolved in the sea water, making it more acidic.
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
This isn't scare mongering, but logic reasoning and facts that can be verified.
As for the logic surrounding the timings, your lack of understanding the system here is hurting your case.
Big systems react slow, have a capacity to absorb a lot until a threshold is reached. Just like one state applied evil thing to a individual person doesn't cause a country wide riot.
The system is getting saturated which can be seen in accelerated warming, models constantly lag reality in this respect.
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
I can easily predict that the summer in Belgium next year will be on average warmer then the temperature in Brussels tomorrow.
Why? I posses some knowledge of the system we are talking about. The earth will be closer to the sun etc and many details that have opposite effect are marginal compared to this single fact.
Right now, temperatures are rising in many places in the world where there are high risks of cascading positive feedbacks.
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago
You are using false reasoning on so many occasions in this video...it is schocking.
Take your weather example. You state that predicting weather 100 years from now is harder then that of tomorrow.
You are comparing apples to oranges. It is FAR EASYER to predict a future global average then a detailed local temperature for tomorrow.
TheEVEInspiration 2 years ago 2
"massive expansion of state control" - Now from what I understand the idea is that we'd burn less coal and use more renewable resources, moving off gasoline as soon as possible. Now, maybe you think it's part of your freedom to drive a car using gasoline and no one can ever ask that it change, or that your freedom to burn coal would be hurt. I really don't see what's so radical.
Watchout5 2 years ago
renewable resources cannot handle the amount of power we use. It's not practicle. Figure out a source that can and we will all jump on board until then don't cripple this country further with feel good politics. Oh and Al Gore wastes more fossile fuels then 7 american families. I thought he was for cap and trade.....Oh yeah maybe because 1 he has a stake in making money from it and 2 he is rich and can afford it.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
That first statement is a lie, look at the MIT paper about how 200ZJ of power is easily obtained with our current geothermal technology. The entire world today uses 0.5ZJ in a year, renewable energy can easily handle the power we use, it's more than practical, it's necessary. He probably does, and I thought he was too, I'm far more interested in the cap part of that. So you're doggin on him for being a capitalist? He has a point of view and makes money off it, that alone doesn't make him wrong
Watchout5 2 years ago
I'll check this "Paper". But they are all still expensive and out of reach for most Common people. I know a few people who got rid of their solar panels because the cost to fix them and other parts were to much. make it affordable. I'm not dogging on Gore for being a capitalist but for pushing his own agenda to better himself. Which is something I hate in all politicians. They might as well name it the Give al gore money bill. I like truth.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
So basicly you're mad at Gore for being greedy? And if you were able to run around the country crying "lower taxes" and making millions you wouldn't do the same? Nothing is going to be better for him if he has to pay these same new taxes, and if he's using so much more fuel then he's going to pay even more taxes. So are you saying that the price of something necessary should play a factor in if we do it or not? Not if it's the right or wrong thing to do? I want to do what's right and needed.
Watchout5 2 years ago
You know what I rewrote my post. I was going to go into detail but it's not worth it your obvoiusly an Al Gore Fan boy. Why else would you stick up for him so much. Which is really sad because I'm like 99.9% sure he wouldn't recognize you from a hole in the wall. Well if Global warming science is right all we will be doing is stalling the inevidable. I do find it funny that The Repubs use terrorism to pass B.S. laws and now the Dems are following suite with the same style scare tactics.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Umm no, I understand that he is motived much like every single person in this country, by money, and there's more money in keeping the system the way it is now and not have it be changed. Al Gore is asking for it to change, and as a result getting criticized for it in the exact same way he characterized his opponents. So your line of thought is, who cares if one day we won't be able to go outside without some kind of suit on, it's inevitable and we should just give up on fixing it if it's hard
Watchout5 2 years ago
The problem is that there is no inherent "rightness", those kind of moral statements are subjective value judgments. If you value something great, invest in it, put your labor and your time into it, but don't authorize some institutional bully to go around forcing people to do things by threat of violence. That kind of institutionalized coercion is very destructive to social order, and I have a preference for personal liberty, as I'm sure you do as well.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
My previous posting was about Albert Einstein, A scientist who did a bit more in his spare time, early on, than drink Mai Tais in an IGWCOCC, cnonference centre bar!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
I think I got the acronym for the, deep breath..Intergovermental..oh whats the use!? How many Climatologists does it take to screw in a energy saving lightbulb? Apparently, over a thousand..
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Global warming is merely a mole hill in the shadow of the mountainous political and economic power and control structures.
It's a distraction, like so many other distractions, intentional or not.
thinkofwhy 2 years ago
stefbot, The original video didn't phase me personally becasue I know where you'recomming from -- so to speak.
That said, the scientific method applied to reason. Scientific reasoning. Welcome replication. Welcome falsification. Not limited to scientific subject matter. Scientific reasoning can be applied to any subject matter. In it's widest scope requires fully integrated honesty.
zonsb 2 years ago
Al Gore (former Vice President of the USA) and David Blood (former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management Company) carbon trading company is called "Blood & Gore"
northpal2 2 years ago
It might increase vegetation if we weren't hacking it down to build buildings to make a profit of other people. But then, I'm no biologist either.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
How can they take ice core samples thousands of years old and imply climate change is man made? Were there that many humans on earth 1000 years ago?
Earth's human population is still pretty scarce when you look at the world as a whole. I've traveled the whole world and have gone hundreds of miles without even seeing another human being.
JessicaBelle81 2 years ago 3
indeed!
RichardDeziel 2 years ago
Great video! Your humility is always magnificent to behold.
lukeev 2 years ago 2
indeed! Yay man...
RichardDeziel 2 years ago
Don't tell him that! You'll give him a big head and deflate his humility.
(At least I let the joke breath, before I explained it)
caltrop69 2 years ago
I am pro global warming. That is, I want the poles to get warmer.
drewmandan 2 years ago 2
me too. I think it will be fun watching the continents submerge under water. Good thing I know how to swim.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
"truthsurge" (the irony of names)
I am pro-global warming, too. I'm 1000+ ft above sea level, Its like a Lex Luthor land scheme, my property will be worth tremendously more if the coasts became the reefs.
Its so absurd to talk about water covering the continents.
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
True. There is not enough in the caps to create a deep enough level to cover all of the continents completely and THIS is also a good reason why the "Noah's flood" acct is impossible. To cover everything would have taken much more water than the atmosphere could even hold. Mt. Everest? hahahah
So, why do you think my name is ironic? Because you actually believed my post literally? tsk.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
Benjamin Franklin - these people will never look at the facts . it is amazing how you can look at the temperature each day for the last 10 years and the average each year has been lower. the earth is cooling! but its not that they are ignorant it is that they refuse to look at the data! it is a religion to them and this religion has been proven to be false 100%
MWAX69 2 years ago
Stef is correct. global warming is science manipulation by the federal government to impose another unrepresented tax on the world.
dweber66 2 years ago 3
@dweber66 why does everyone say the government is the problem?? kennedy was government he really tried to change things look what happened to him?
Haplesshiccuper 1 year ago
Hmm..thinks..Add goverment to evolution..get eugenics, add goverment to climate science..get global warming hysteria. Is there anything the goverment can't mess up?
DecassyJake 2 years ago
wait anthropomorphic can mean man made AND shaped like man? haha
444DeanMachine 2 years ago
So what is the motive of those who support the global warming theory?
Why is the state interested in GW and it did not do anything (as you stated) to decrease it?
This is contradictory.
k0n14k 2 years ago
The state: To increase its power. The academics, to get funding.
stefbot 2 years ago
No it is Orwellian double speak.
moonreft 2 years ago
@k0n14k no offence but you should watch some of his more basic videos if you cannot answer this question
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris
1. how do you know i cannot answer this question? I ask for Molyneux' argument POV on this. I have my own.
2. rather than wasting everyone's time, would you please just enlighten everyone who might have similar questions - if you know stefbot's POV, that is?
k0n14k 1 year ago
@k0n14k Like terrorism it instills fear into people. I.e. we quickly have to pass this law before its too late. It gives the government an excuse to spend massive amounts of money in "green energy".
fps0chris 1 year ago
You're kidding right? You say "I cannot judge the science" and then you go on and start saying stuff like "there is no way they can do this this and this"
Leave the science to the scientists m8.
SamNoble89 2 years ago
I watched something on the Discovery channel about this. And they said that the polar ice is about half the thickness it was 100 yrs ago. Now, they also say that if the polar ice caps melt, water levels throughout the world will rise so much that coastal cities will be under water. So, why are our coast lines about where they were back then? I think Stefan's point about money being taken at the point of a gun should be given great consideration.
jerami101 2 years ago
If the polar ice melts it would not raise water levels significantly because ice is water. Only the parts of ice that are above sea level would raise it. Instead, what it would do is, it would introduce cold unsalted water into the Atlantic ocean and that would disturb and eventually stop its current. The hot air that this current is spreading over Europe, which maintains its moderate climate, would stop coming in and Europe would go into another ice age.
Grindermetalhead 2 years ago
With whos monies? Thats right its ours.
moonreft 2 years ago
Excellent video Stef, very broad, but very fair.
I'm not an alarmist myself but do believe in analyzing data and issues presented by politicians & experts - not to take information at face value too. Lets be honest, there is always the possibly of personal or social agendas being implemented at the cost of taxpayers.
Recommend reading "Tutankhamun Prophecies, by Maurice Cotterell; Appendix 1: The Sun" which has detailed information on SunSpots cycles & its relationship to earth climate change.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Clarification understood. Thanks for your integrity...hard to find these days.
mgatchel 2 years ago
I think that Stef is combining the arguments for human contribution to global warming with certain statist "solutions" to the problem and then being skeptical to the former due to the fact that the latter is obviously invalid.
It seems to me that one could accept that humans are contributing to global warming, but prefer free market solutions to the issue.
TheEfkk 2 years ago
This time i agree with you 100%.
AGW is most likely bull funded by politicians and spreaded by cheap media.
marjan15 2 years ago
Your humility is the best hockey stick model for a fairer future society that I can imagine. Peace Love and Anarchy, Jake.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Stef is not a very humble person. But this video was good.
davyjames 2 years ago
Hi Stefan. I appreciate your scepticism regarding climate research but what if climate change IS indeed man-made, catastrophic and only preventable by what you call an enormous expansion of state power? What then? Please speak to this possibility. Would really like to hear your thoughts on it.
iPlantChannel 2 years ago
7:26
An accuracy of >80% is quite good for me.
Uh now i stated that science works, that´s aboslutely idiotic to claim a conspiracy in there...
I just wait for all these retards to flame around making these preposterous claims of vaccines that kill you...
xD!
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
Well said. :o)
2minstral 2 years ago
Yer.. know, Albert Einstein Did his groundwork for The general theory of relativity while holding down a office job.Perhaps All those Climatologists and Black hole twitchers, should get a proper job. Working for money stolen from people must be a terrible burden for the sensitive psyches of scientists.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Quite Right! All scientists should get proper jobs such as cesspool cleaners and coal miners. Now those are proper jobs. We should all do just as our fathers did before us, labor hard, drink hard, die worn out, that's a proper life for a man. Try and advance the human condition with science? Preposterous! What has science ever done for us? Utterly useless science is. Nothing good ever came from science. Science? BAH, HUMBUG!
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
Yea and all retards shoud shut up..
But it´s not going to happen simpletonyou´ll never figure out why.
xD!
0PsycoDad0 2 years ago
Well..scientists like Dr Mengle' did a lot of "useful" work torturing jew's, and their research did help in the development of ejection seats for fighter pilots, and medicines for motion sickness, so guess what, State funded science CAN be useful..too much? Perhaps a nice productive office job is better than trying to support the bullying of the 3rd world into not developing? ThomasCrapper didnt have ta drink himself to death to invent an alternative to the cesspoolThe cesspool IS State Largess!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
well said DecassyJake
Signzit 2 years ago
Thank u Signzit! I saw a doc recently about the mental anguish, the stresses and strains, State funded scientists are undergoing, trying to understand the nature of black holes..I feel their pain, especially when I look for jobs in the black hole of our economy. Wow it sucks!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
DecassyJake,
During that period Einstein worked as a patent examiner. IWO he was an employee of the Swiss Federal gov't.
Is that you meant by a "proper job?"
lnd3005 2 years ago
I had a feeling that may come up! he was in quite a skilled, probably often time consuming, white collar job. In a future anarco soc, people who do a similar job to patent examiners, sound quite useful. obviously it gives you time to come up with Relativity!Full time employees of CERN, should get jobs in washing machine factories phaps!And stop taking all that stolen state money!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
This video made me think of your video of the Joy in Humility. It takes humility to admit errors so thanks for this reply.
I still don't agree with your conclusions on global warming, but I do agree with your methodology.
I don't think governments want to 'order scientific results' that indicate the existence of global warming or climate change, because that would mean that they had to invest in preventing these things (remember the news item that you mentioned for the previous video).
RoyvanKeulen 2 years ago
This has to be the worst video you've ever made. Apart from the fact that you have no scientific credentials to make such claims about global warming, you effectively shot yourself in the foot here because almost all the arguments you've made against the state are also applicable in the case against capitalism.
Grindermetalhead 2 years ago
Don't confuse a true free market capitalism, with State Capitalism. Really how many scientific credentials do Barack Obama have..answer none. He does have his finger on the trigger of State power tho..and when he and others in the gov point the gun..those in the way dance to the tune they choose. Stef doesn't need scientific credentials to point that little fact out.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
You're right about Obama's lack of scientific credentials. However, people who do have such credentials, namely scientists in the field, agree almost universally that the human activity has contributed significantly to global warming.
And the argument that government funding of the global warming research has somehow contributed to scientific bias is laughable when you consider the fact that USA stands as the only country that has not ratified Kyoto Protocol and has no intention to do so.
Grindermetalhead 2 years ago
hmmmmmmmmm stef argument about they dont know climate prediction over a year.
is it not possible that climate gos up and own so its much more difficult to predict whats happening over a year than whats happening over 100 years statisticly.
??
erdal0 2 years ago
statistically
erdal0 2 years ago
From Fora TV, Nobel Laureate Henry Pollack on "How Sure Are Scientists About Global Warming?" watch?v=InPbrTpSHFo
Also from Fora TV, Steven Levitt on his book with cheap ways to counter Global Warming "Freakonomics: Three Geoengineering Solutions to Global Warming" watch?v=6RsrRpjAGi8
From YouTube, potholer54 arguing when and why co2 is and isn't relevant to Climate change. "5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?" watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
I watched potholer54's series and it was the first coherent and non-political thing about this issue that I've seen. Certainly changed my view about a lot of stuff (which was relieving).
Perhaps the problem is not the science but the people who tell about the science.
After all, the politicians lie about so many things that it is perfectly understandable to doubt their word on this issue.
I'm not ashamed of being paranoid about them. =)
But this is a BIG problem for the science community.
ks100001 2 years ago 2
You forgot one more perquisite for global warming as it is put forward today.
It has to be a bad thing
sharperguy 2 years ago
Stephan, stefbot (?)
You say at 10:57 'The government is paying huge amounts of money to a particular group and that this group is churning back increases in disaster scenarios and attacks on skeptics'.
Really? The US is the #1 world polluter, it failed to ratify the Kyoto Accord and by your argument US scientists, since the 2000 election should have been "churning out" massive reams of data refuting any possibility of an anthropogenic cause for Global Warming.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
Yet despite all that Conservative money, Bush, and governmental pressure, the opposite is true. Science continues to claim that Global Warming is anthropogenically rooted.
What seems to me to be the facts, contradicts the result I would expect to see if your argument (On this one point) were valid.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
In short, you seem (on the face of it, on this one point) to refute your own argument. Under The Big Oil, Big Business, Big Conservative, US Government of George Bush, there should have been 'churned out' ample 'Proof' that Global Warming is false. The establishment whose vested interests are furthered by denying Global Warming would have demanded just such 'churn' from Bush.
So where is it? Why did US scientists ignore the gun and publish articles counter to the government interests?
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
Oerhaps it shows that Politicians and thier corporate friends have found it advantagious to play both ends off against the middle..ie the middle class. Get all the nice productive people to be distracted by a "scientific" cause celebre, and away from the abuses of State power?
DecassyJake 2 years ago
I'll say it again:
You say you're not qualified to understand the data, then start expressing opinions on it (cycles of temperature, related to sunspots, volcanoes produce more CO2, etc.)
Well?
robzrob 2 years ago
If governments are backing global warming research and it is therefore false, why are governments not doing anything significant to slow it down or stop it?
robzrob 2 years ago
Cos they know it's BS?!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Global warming is real.
There is almost no debate about this among scientist anymore.
think greenman3610 youtube user has good videos about this.
barabellum80 2 years ago
You don't have to apologise,the global warming agenda is used as a political tool,the temperatures on earth rise and fall every couple of hundred years and us 'smart' species just has to get used to it,people always try prove and justify GW but all you have to tell them is that if people were to leave this planet(Oxygen might run out) climate change would still occur,end of story.
joshv89 2 years ago
If you're going to shoot video at night, turn on a couple lights. Otherwise it looks like Casper the Friendly Ghost is doing a podcast. : )
GrayBlood1331 2 years ago
Anthropogenic global warming is real, and the state can't stop it unless they take us back to the stone age. As fossil fuels become more scarce, prices will rise. We will move to alternatives. And the Earth will be 1 or 2 degrees warmer for a while.
/thread
Morrakiu 2 years ago
Or thake the worlds population back to 500 Million. Which is, apparently, what many of the Elites would like to do. However, hasn't the term 'Global Warming' been replaced by the term 'Climate Change' because no rise in temperture has been seen over the last 10 years?
CelticReject 2 years ago
While you cannot say
all science which is state funded is wrong
What you can say is
all science which is state funded is controlled.
Both statement produce the same results.
northpal2 2 years ago
Thank you, Stef. This was an important clarification.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
"Global warming"? Is that the excuse to stop deforestation, over reproduction, pollution, depletion of limited resources?
WEAK!
If humans need the State to help them save the planet, humans might as well annihilate themselves a.s.a.p.
asperin 2 years ago
I think the political involvement in this important issue has divided people and created mistrust of the data.
I live in the Alps and we can clearly see global warming picking up pace over the past 30 years with our glaciers melting away.
When you said more CO2 creates more plant life to absorb it, how will we get more plant life if we don't allow it to grow? (deforestation) The Carbon Credit program has industry pay farmers to grow CO2 absorbing grasslands to offset their carbon pollution.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
Not many people disagree that we are in a heating period, but many disagree that it is caused by humans.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago 2
Not many people disagree that there is a large variation of life on earth, but many people disagree that it is caused by speciation.
The common link between the 'skepticism' in both examples is a personal investment in denying thoroughly researched and tested science.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
Like most of Stef's viewers, I am an anarchist/voluntarist. I fully agree with Stef that the state could never solve the problem and would cause great harm in attempting to do so.
However, I've noticed a trend in libertarian circles toward denying established science when it's perceived to be inconvenient with libertarian philosophy.
Maybe I'm giving to much credit, but it seems to me that most modern scientists are passionate in the extreme towards honestly representing scientific truth.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
I've noticed a trend in libertarian circles toward denying established science
Can you name 3 of these instances ?
northpal2 2 years ago
1. Global warming, as explained.
2. Second hand smoke; many libertarians have denied the harmful effects because they don't agree with smoking laws.
3. SOME libertarians deny evolution because they link it to "Social Darwinism".
I'm not saying that libertarianism is anti-science, far from it. I'm simply saying that many libertarians pick and choose science that they believe to somehow support libertarianism.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
Global warming- Earth is not warming
Second hand smoke - many libertarians have denied the harmful effects
Although it is greatly exaggerated
evolution as far as humans has never been proven, thats why after all the science and searching we still haven't found the missing link.
Even Darwinhimself stated the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"
northpal2 2 years ago
"Global warming- Earth is not warming"
Yes it is. This is not even a point of debate among scientists that deny any human cause for or negative effects of global warming. It is measurable fact.
"Evolution as far as humans has never been proven..."
Yes it has, at least as far as anything can be proven. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. EVERY fossil ever found that was not a dead end is a "missing link."
Cailwyn 2 years ago
the Earth has been cooling for ten years, . The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
That is the reason why they fudged the numbers. This is what climate gate has shown, it is in their conversations, in their code, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued
northpal2 2 years ago
""the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory""
What how the meaning of words change when not deliberately misrepresented: ""Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Cailwyn 2 years ago
1. The truth is that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC 'CONSENSUS'. It is NOT a slam-dunk that mankind is causing the climate to change.
2. As a libertarian, it comes down to whether you're on private or public property. Bars/restaurants/airplanes/places of business/ect. are PRIVATE places no one is forced to be. Govt really has no legitimate right to ban smoking in private places. Public, OK, there is a case.
3. Evolution is still a theory. Makes sense to me, but not really a big deal.
ashane77 2 years ago
1. The earth is warming. Even scientists not of the majority opinion acknowledge this. And the sun has cooled significantly in recent years. Sunspot have not been this inactivate for almost a century, solar wind pressure is at a 50yr low, and the sun is actually dimmer than it was 10 years ago.
2. I'm against the government getting involved at all. As I said before, I'm just pointing out a trend I see among my libertarian peers, who I usually trust to present the most objective case.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
1. Still debateable. I've seen many who say the warming stopped 10 years ago. In any event, trying to link it strictly to mankind is very dubious.
2. Well, I mostly agree, but a valid point about smoke infringing on someone else's person exists. Private, enclosed areas are a slam-dunk: if you don't like it leave. However, do I have the right to blow smoke in your face? If I have 100 smoker friends over for a bbq, is it cool if our combined smoke drifts into your backyard nonsmoker bbq?
ashane77 2 years ago
3. Gravity is still a theory. In scientific terms a theory isn't a hypothesis or guess. There is no theory, whatsoever, that has been so thoroughly researched or has a greater body of corroborating evidence as evolution.
A common misconception is that scientific theories eventually turn into scientific laws when more data is collected. In reality, scientific theory will ALWAYS remain a scientific theory, and is no more rudimentary than a scientific law.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
Good point. I don't dispute evolution.
My take on the evolution thing is that practically, for the vast majority of folks, what does it matter what one believes about this? I know a big deal is made about it in the public schools (solution: end public schooling), but, really, when was the last time evolution played a significant part in YOUR private life (job interview, etc.)? For non-scientists, its pretty inconsequential, in daily life.
ashane77 2 years ago
Maybe it's a plea to authority, but I think that such an enormous amount of data, despite the state funding in the majority of the research in it's collection, lends more than enough weight to one end of this scale. At any rate, at least enough weight as to not be discredited by amateur, internet 'scientist' trying to tip the scales with conspiracy theories.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
Scientists have serious interests of their own. As Stef says, they only get paid if they make conclusions that support the government agenda. Their research has serious flaws (the 800yr lag being the most significant IMO) that I don't recognize as objective science.
I may not be an expert on the climate but I do have a degree in statistics.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
"Scientists have serious interests of their own. As Stef says, they only get paid if they make conclusions that support the government agenda."
Granted, but meaningless, because the same could be said of opposing research.
"Their research has serious flaws"
Sure, but you'll find similar flaws in any field with this vast body of research.
If a few cherry-picked snippets invalidates millions of man-hours of research, then evolution, general relatively, and quantum mechanics are also invalid.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
I don't consider criticism of reverse causality cherry-picking ;)
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
I can entertain this idea, of thinking humans aren't the cause of global warming, which lets most of these people you speak of forget about doing anything to change their negative impact on our planet. I would suggest to these people that even if it's not our fault, can we please do something about it anyway? Can we please reduce the greenhouse inducing CO2 in our atmosphere and try to save our glaciers and therefore our watersheds for over a billion people. Can we still work towards a balance?
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
If it's not our fault I don't see why we would want to change the natural cycle of nature. And even if we did want to, I don't think we can control it anymore than we can control gravity.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Well that's a real can't-do attitude. I didn't suggest we "control it", I suggest we stop doing harm to it. If we know our planet's surface is warming, and we know CO2 traps more heat making it even warmer still, why not reduce our CO2 output? Why not try to save many species including ourselves from the ill effects of a gradually warming home planet?
Because we can't control gravity? Really, that's a good reason to do nothing and wait to see just how bad it gets?
Not for me.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
Well, now you say that we DO cause global warming, but your first comment was based on the assumption that we "aren't the cause of global warming".
I don't believe for one second in the man made global warming, but I do realize that humans damage nature my polluting our waters and lands and that we should take hand care of this. The problem is that big government and anti-capitalist regulation is only going to make it worse.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
If you don't "believe" the reality that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere and that in turn traps more heat that would otherwise escape our planet, then you're not really educated enough on the subject to be taken seriously at all. I don't mean to insult you, but it's pretty basic grade-school science classroom stuff. Our fossil fuel burning energy plants produce it, so does most all of our manufacturing, our beef cattle, our automobiles, etc. Then we deforest to boot.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
What is don't believe is your unquestioned accept of the man made global warming religion and I am not going to discuss this with you as it will be a waste of my time. If you want to know my reasons for not believing in your religion please read my comment to
Cailwyn.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Wow, if only facts could make a religion, wouldn't that be something special.
No offense intended but you might want to take a few seconds to proof read what you write so that you don't look like an idiot. I'm sure you're not an idiot, just in some kind of hurry or something:)
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
I only see one error (is/I) but English it only my fourth language.
Man made global warming is not a fact, it is a politically biased theory. I mentioned my main reason to Cailwyn (800 years lag) which is my main reason to reject the claim, but it's not really a subject that can be debated throughly within the 500 words limit.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
(It's ok to say English is your second language, but saying it's your fourth if it is in fact your second is kind of lame. Maybe it IS your fourth, but if it's your second....yea - lame.)
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
English is my fourth language. I learned after learning my own and two other languages.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
You need not apologize.
dovolen78 2 years ago
Stef, you're a philosopher, not a climate scientist. The global warming on Jupiter has a fundamentally different cause than Earth, you can Google it. (If I remember correctly, it's going through a summer.) Yes, in theory more carbon dioxide would mean more oxygen, but plants can only breathe so much. If there was an excess in oxygen, humans wouldn't simply breathe more to accommodate it, and deforestation doesn't help it. Maybe there's a reason most scientists believe in global warming.
nhmllr725 2 years ago
We have many, many weather monitoring stations on earth and the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming. But Stefbot is skeptical, fair enough.
But we send a few probes around Jupiter and look at it with telescopes and there may be some evidence of warming. Stefbot accepts it uncritically.
I would consider this strong evidence of bias. Stefbot should definitely get that examined.
kamijk 2 years ago