I'm sorry but I have lived 23 years in Canada's north. I can honestly admit that these past years I've witnessed a record breaking summer and a record breaking winter for being abnormally warmer. Sure it could be an outlier, but it is always better to be cautious. Is the planet going to melt in 50 years. No it wont. But our planet getting warmer should be accepted as FACT. Think of it. Our pop. is growing. Our energy demands our growing. Once 3rd world countries are developing = more consumers.
@whatsthisish "can we attack the argument instead of the presenter?"
I'm confused by this comment.
Aren't people addressing the factual errors and misrepresentations in the video?
And in my opinion someone with a pattern of errors should be called out.
What do YOU call it when somebody misrepresents facts? I would say they are either misinformed or dishonest. I would use the former if it appeared to be a mistake, and the latter if I have trouble believing it's an accidental error.
Dear people who watch this crap: please base your ideas on something other than the the ramblings of uneducated know-it-alls. Go buy or download a book instead.
Ahhhh....seriously talk to a climate scientist. You just could not be more mistaken regarding CO2.....gaaahhhhhh.....We do NOT ignore ths SUN! Seriously do you think every Ph.D. on the planet is THAT retarded! There is a reason why CO2 is more important than water vapor....Seriously...you should know this. Do you not do ANY research before you do these videos?
@pauliexcluded1 "Do you not do ANY research before you do these videos?"
Sadly, I think he does. A lot of the facts that he gets wrong are very easy to verify. You should see the doozies in his other science-topic vids. Given how easy some of this info is to confirm or disconfirm, I think he's simply being dishonest.
@pauliexcluded1 I think the guy's actually very bright and good at what he does, so I can't really attribute his factual errors to stupidity. It's some level of dishonesty...perhaps starting with himself.
In junior high, his science teacher said something stupid, and now he's used that to open his environmental propaganda video. I can deal with smug people, but this guy is bothering me because he's an idiot who talks like a smug knowitall. Knowitalls are bad enough when they are actually smart.
to say that humans can change the weather is sheer lunacy. and i dont care how its spelled or my grammer in typing. if you think mankind can change the weather, i have ocean front property in arizona to sell ya. i got it from jimmy carter in 79, when he said we would run out of oil in 10 yrs
@ken2999 No one ever said we would run out of oil in 10 yrs. We will not run out of oil in 1000 years. However it has, and will continue to, become more and more economically inviable as a primary energy source. We need to use our cheap source of energy to develop a sustainable energy infrastructure while we still can. Just because alarmist say dumb things throughout history does not mean there are not issues to be addressed.
@wizardsbane Whats the problem with "Conservative leaning"? I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded. At least take a look at what they have to say - you hear far more of the other perspective
@SuperMcbatman "Whats the problem with "Conservative leaning"?"
I'm against intentionally qualifying any learning, personally. Not against hearing somebody's personal opinion.
"Learning" usually assumes there is an good faith effort to present facts accurately. What would you call a "learning" process that does NOT make that good faith effort?
I assert that the fellow making these videos often fails to make that effort, on a number of topics, usually the more politically charged ones.
@SuperMcbatman The problem with a conservative-leaning think tank studying anything related to global climate change is that the conservative position in America is that climate change doesn't exist or it isn't caused by human intervention. Science is also not biased. Partisan science is bad. This isn't a moral issue, the two sides do not contribute equally. In a debate about whether the world is flat or not, the side that denies all evidence except their own that it's flat contributes nothing.
Not to mention, having the people who think the world is 6000 years old and people walked with dinosaurs - aren't the people you want determining the nuances of climate change.
I really hate the "treat both sides equally" argument. On one side we have 99% of the scientific community and on the other we have the oil companies who have put in millions of dollars into "research" that disagrees with climate change. Go ahead try and find one scientific paper that disagrees with global warming that wasn't sponsered by companies that would have an interest in people not beliving it.
Global Warming leads to eventual "Global Cooling", that is what leads to the Ice Age. When the temperature rises enough, the oceans cycle will halt, when this happens that will lead to the next Ice Age. Not that it wasn't going happen in the cycle of Earth anyway, BUT the holes in our atmosphere will speed that up quite nicely. That is the problem.
@tiffcomp "Since when do we make disicions based on hypothetical scenarios"
hypothetical? Or predictions. We make decisions based on predictions ALL THE TIME!
"We need to look at the people who claim these things, and why they are claiming them."
Goes both ways. On the one hand we have climate scientists. On the other hand we have politicians, talk show radio hosts, oil companies, bloggers, etc.
Who is more likely to accurately understand the subject so as to make better predictions?
the carbon tax is only being pushed because nato currently need funding..nato always brings up the issue of funding and everytime they want money congresshave to sign for it and its a long process..the carbon tax will give nato full funding...do a bit of research on it..its a scam people...wake up b4 they implement it and we are stuck with it
Before there were fossil fuels, there was 65% more life on earth and sea levels were 60 metres lower. Global warming is nuclear fiction from the stupid and paid
Another way not to pollute is to either hunt for yourself or buy local if you like to eat meat. Those awesome trees being talked about in this video happen to be cleared away in the rainforest for your hamburger cows. Humans eat meat at such a great frequency that rainforest needs to be cut down to make room for all its meat cows.
Note: Huge animals create a lot of waste. And we keep breeding them.
The world has been cooling for 13 years. When you were still in high school! High school biology explains that man cannot control the level carbon dioxide in the air only photosynthesis can
The world has been cooling for 13 years. When you were still in high school! High school biology explains that man cannot control the level carbon dioxide in the air only photosynthesis can
One of the most informative things I learned in college that pertains to this topic is that the Earth goes through warm and cool phases. In my environmental science class, we went over how the Earth is currently in a warm phase and the Earth will begin to cool again in the next couple hundred years or so.
@xchucktatorshipx wow. no shit? You learned that in school? You must go to some awesome school. The rest of us get taught that gravity is a theory and global warming (climate change or whatever) is a fact.
Global Warming or not, before we know it everyone will die from cancer, so please, just see this "Global Warming" as "Global Infecting human beings with alot of CO2 giving them all cancer" lets be honest, more and more people are dying from cancer.
@RSKorosiya Well, I remember one of the news stations saying that some doctor in Europe, cured this one guy's cancer. I think they said they used Baking soda, somehow? Then the Government, took away his license for doing so. (I think that's how it happened, I could be wrong.) Sounds crazy, I know. But if you Google it you should find the article.
Here's a chart of peoples' oppinions during diferent months: January - Meh, this is pseudo science February - There's no solid proof March - Hmmmm sounds plausable April - Holy crap they were right! May - We should cut down our CO2 June - OH MY GOD! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!! July - OH MY GOD! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!! August - We should cut down our CO2 September - Holy crap they were right! October - Hmmmm sounds plausable November - There's no solid proof December - Meh, this is pseudo science
This guy takes a couple facts from a couple sources and blows them out of proportion. He complains about removing CO2, but guess who produces it: us. We have unnatural levels from fossil fuels, that's why. This guy is sort of biased.
Good Video that all people that believe holding farts will save the environment should watch, but Sustainability is Eugenics. I don't trust people that use that world.
Yes, al Gore is a fucking idiot. Never the less, anyone with a college education knows that increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide will increase the temperature, bu Carbon Dioxide traps heat.
Wow. Goes to show, just because you act like you know what you're talking about doesn't mean you do. This guy is so far out of touch with actual scientific fact, and yet so sure of himself, its almost laughable--but mostly its a little scary. For someone who thinks his little math tricks are so clever, I would've expected a little more thought and respect for the scientific method.
@sadlkfjdsal take a look at some of the stats comparing the amount of heat C02 traps compared to H20. Considering how much influence H20 has on the temperature and how much of it there is, it's ridiculous to think that C02 has a significant effect.
It should also be noted that most scientists would say that environmental science is very complicated and that there are too many factors to be sure of anything. Although many are saying that it is the sun, not man that has the primary influence
@QuelDroma366 The vast majority of scientific evidence is in opposition to this. I cited a recent report from "Nature" below (doi:10.1038/nature.2011.9538) as an example in another response below.
I agree that the science is complicated and that theories aren't proven, but supported by evidence. Still, if someone says there's a 99% probability (thereby acknowledging a 1% chance to the contrary) of a particular thing, is that not evidence enough? If not, what is?
@sadlkfjdsal He is actually saying correct facts. Give me one incorrect fact he said, your clearly trying to sound smart and quarrelsome, but you really aren't, perhaps he is wrong about minor details but for the most part he is exquisite.
@ProfessionalGam3rz Well...you (and this guy in the video) may be doing exactly what he warns against in the first part of his video: fitting data to meet an argument.
As tempting as it is to say that trailing CO2 indicated a reversed causal relationship to what Gore presented, that is not the scientific consensus. Why? Is it because all of these scientists are corrupt?
The fact is, the "lag" is consistent with the science that supports the same causal relationship Gore suggests. (cont...)
@iridescentsquids I am not implying scientists are corrupt I am saying that modern day scientists very little research the problem before trying to find a cure. I have spoken to 2 professors here in Israel during their lectures and both said that CO2 is unlikely to cause global warming, other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2. In fact like he said scientists were sure a few years back that we were heading to an ice age...
@ProfessionalGam3rz "other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2. In fact like he said scientists were sure a few years back that we were heading to an ice age..."
Your conversations with two scientists do not reflect the current consensus, or consensus among climatologists for the last 15 years, for that matter.
"a few years back", in fact many many decades back up to the present, it was well understood that C02 causes warming. Nothing new.
@ProfessionalGam3rz " other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2"
on this particular point...I don't think it's at all relevant that there are gasses that are more effective at holding heat in our atmosphere than CO2. What matters is, are CO2 levels rising in such a way that they are causing global warming. If other cases aren't having that effect, what's the point of even bringing them up? It's a red herring.
@iridescentsquids We produce Mathane and Nirous oxide too, Nitous Oxide holds heat way better then CO2 and Mathane wich is produced while farintg destroys the Ozone.
@iridescentsquids In fact Nitrous Oxide obsorbes almost 300 times more heat per molicule then Carbon dioxide and Mathane does 21 times more, yet nobody says anything about them.
@ProfessionalGam3rz Yes, but what do we produce more of? We don't constantly churn out Nitrous Oxide and Methane. CO2 lasts up to around 100 years, so does Nitrous Oxide, and methane lasts about 12 years. CO2 is probably the biggest factor in human caused climate change, and it is the simplest to reduce. That's why we focus on it.
@Rankpenguin Dude think about it every creature to fart produces mathane, CO2 is naturall and used by plants so its good, Nitrous Oxide is also used quiet a lot, not to mention that CO2 doesnt trap much heat at all so even if a car drives 20 miles 5 farts from cow will still do more damage.
@ProfessionalGam3rz "Dude think about it every creature to fart produces mathane, CO2 is naturall and used by plants so its good...CO2 doesnt trap much heat at all"
Quick question: are you serious with these arguments, or being sarcastic?
I won't pretend I'm a climate scientist, but it didn't take me long to find many references to exactly this issue and the science behind the claim that the lag is not consistent with this video-guys' assertions. (basically, the beginning of a warming cycle in turn accelerates the release of CO2, which in turn increases warming...a snowball effect, no pun intended)
It's hard for me not to see this guy as blatantly hypocritical on the 'interpretation of data' issue.
@ProfessionalGam3rz Please point me to these stats. The vast majority of scientific evidence is in opposition to this. There is a report from "Nature" on a very recent study of yet another model of the earth's climate that evidences anthropogenic global warming:
doi:10.1038/nature.2011.9538
I know of no scientific studies which back your position. If you are telling me the facts are correct, please show me how you "know" this. Otherwise, yours is a position of faith--the religion of denial.
To buy the current global warming narrative, you have to believe 4 things:
~ The world is getting warmer
~The warming is caused by humans
~The warming will lead to a calamity
~ Spending trillions of dollars might fix the problem
If you don't believe in any one of these, then you don't believe in the global warming narrative.
BTW, when the whole global warming hysteria is proven to be false, those who espouse it will just move on the the next hysteria. There's plenty to choose from.
I guess my point is, a reasonable person might see evidence for points 1, 2 and 3.
But there are things skeptics on both sides can probably agree on: Because this issue is highly political, the science is getting buried. We have to remain skeptical of any answers to these questions we find on talk radio or other media sources, oil company initiatives, etc. As much as possible we should be relying on science, not PR campaigns or talking points.
@iridescentsquids I agree with you. Probably the most famous scientist who believes the first 3 but not the 4th is Bjorn Lomborg. Check out his video "Our priorities for saving the world".
It's really important that we ask what can we do and what should we do. We can't blindly follow hysterics like Al Gore. Common sense is needed.
But if we are going to mention Gore, we have to note that the "hysterics" (vs reason) run on BOTH sides of the issue. Skeptic positions are also big money makers for conservative politicians who are oil company and (some) big-business cronies.
It annoys me that politicians filter the science right out of science.
Some would even have us believe there is no danger at all.
Even Lomborg has said GW is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today".
@sydneymassive Sure. It's a well known fact that conservative tv and radio hosts are EXPERTS on the subject. Veritable global warming Einsteins. And we all know that the so called "real" climate scientists who actually study it for a living are faking everything, snickering under their breath as they play along with one of the greatest, most elaborate conspiracies ever concocted (with the exception of evolution, of course. That's a conspiracy that involves almost ALL scientists!)..meh...such bs
@sydneymassive If you want to believe what they say on the radio shows and such, that's fine. Go ahead.
But know this: there is actual, objective expert analysis on the subject of those emails available if you care to look. If you prefer to listen to people who make a living selling controversy, that's your prerogative.
@sydneymassive I would think if you're going to site the IPCC emails you would know something about the actual committees (six, I believe) that investigated them. You won't find much mention of the findings by the bloggers and talk shows that relished in breaking (and creating) the story, and who fed you the story you were so hungry to consume.
Why? Because the findings of all committees were unanimous that no fraud or SCIENTIFIC misconduct occurred. And that's...well... not as exciting.
@sydneymassive Again, take whatever side you want, just get your facts straight.
The six:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US).
Now, if you want to ASSUME these are ALL part of some giant conspiracy without looking into it...what can I say... Knock yourself out. It's your brain.
@sydneymassive You're doing a terrific job at making my point. For most people, climate change has very little to do with science or with any effort to find out what is true or false.
This is partly because most people aren't scientists. But also because the only way they have learned about the issue: Politically charged TV, radio, blogs, etc, that are nothing more than politics and PR nonsense. Like the video above.
But that's how you have learned about the issue, so that's what you repeat.
@iridescentsquids Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear , which covers the whole hoax that is global warming, global cooling, or the new and improved climate change. I'm not sure what else they can call it. The is well soured. Take time out and read it. Better yet, follow the money. Mr. Gore has made over 90 million dollars off this massive hoax. As if, scientist never get it wrong...right. Oh, I am I to assume you are, a scientist?
@arubberball Home schooled? Very poor grammar, even for a youtube quip.
Michael Crichton writes fiction. Dramatic fiction.
You are not a scientist, either. So lets stop all this gum flapping and listen. To what the actual scientists are saying. Not writers of fiction, or radio talk show hosts.
@iridescentsquids Real scientists? Professor Phil Jones- Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Dr Murari Lal, Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified. Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035. TIME magazine1974 Another Ice Age? Crichton's did believed in global warming, until he did the research for his book. grammar cop, lol
@arubberball Professor Phil Jones!? Either you have ignored the fact or simply don't believe that he's been cleared of any scientific wrong doing. Meaning the science itself was not faulty.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to attempt to discredit an entire body of science, not by addressing the science itself, but through a PR campaign like the so called "climategate". None of these examples you give discredits science, because none of it is science.
@iridescentsquids It's also equally asinine to presume there is, an irrefutable consensus on global warming, i.e., climate change. I can produce over 500 articles and, opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and scholars who challenge the man-made explanation of global warming.This is just another ingenious way to control people and, attempt to redistribute wealth.Good luck at being an useful idiot. Al made 100 million off this hoax.
@iridescentsquids But, Crichton isn't calling for the end of the world by using flawed data. Huge difference. You need to work on your skills in defending a complete fraud. No need to reply, you're a waste of my time.
@arubberball I understand you are convinced it's a fraud, but really, you've presented nothing but the talking points from an extensive PR campaign. That should bring anybody pause, as it's inherent in such campaigns to present only half-truths and tortured data.
The same CAN be said of Gore and other non-scientists promoting a point of view, but there is NOTHING better about your perspective than his, because you offer NO SCIENCE to back your media-based opinion.
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with being a Crichton fan, or J.K. Rowling fan for that matter. I can't say that it's NOT theoretically possible to resurrect dinosaurs as he posits, or that it's NOT theoretically possible to create a global conspiracy on such a massive and extensive scale. I'm saying simply that he, as a writer of fiction, doesn't merit special consideration just because he writes well.
Entertaining? Undeniably. But so is cirque de soleil.
Besides, I am not the once convinced of any point of view, except that there is a lot of garbage out there motivated by corrupt politicians and completely, 100% biased media personalities. I also beleive that science matters.
I'm not claiming "an irrefutable consensus" on global warming. I will say that among climatologists here IS a consensus, however. Not irrefutable, but certainly not in support of Crichton's position, which you have absorbed because you like him.
Lastly, you mentioned "flawed data". This is an interesting talking point often used by anti-GW campaigns. The idea is simple: Point out a flaw, and the whole deck of cards is suspect.
Problem is, that's now how science works. Never has been.
Important question: Where does this tactic come from?
Answer: Politics. This is the same technique used in negative advertising. It's bull.
@iridescentsquids Good thing there's lots of real science that any moron can understand. Start here. Less than 5 mins of reading. skepticalscience dot see oh em
@frankvonfrauner "Good thing there's lots of real science that any moron can understand."
Generally speaking, I wouldn't trust a moron to get science right. I honestly don't think it's easy to properly understand a lot of the science.
Not that we shouldn't try, and the skepticalscience site at least helps people willing to consider the possibility that the battle against climate science is a dishonest PR campaign. I wish that fact mattered more, though.
@sydneymassive It's actually a tactic not dissimilar from those used by creationists to attempt to demote evolution. In the absence of traction in the scientific community, the most powerful tool to influence science-driven policies (such as GW or teaching evolution in schools) is to run a PR campaign. A massive PR campaign is actually more powerful than science when it comes to influencing politics because the science is simply too boring and complex for most people to even try to understand.
@sydneymassive And you are right about one thing: Al Gore treats the entire thing as a PR campaign. Probably because he's a politician. Just a guess.
My point: Don't mix up the science with the politics if you want to know the best science on the subject. You won't find the best science on talk radio shows, or coming out of a politicians mouth.
I think this guy should wear a superhero outfit or something. Maybe with HC on his chest: Homeschool man.
He and bible man could be part of some kind of wonder team, fighting the oppressive facts of science with squinty looks, sarcasm, and abrupt-cut edits.
Science discovers cure for cancer...have no fear, Homeschool man is here! "Don't believe what those scientists say. Stay at home if your sick and pray! "
@iridescentsquids When you are stupid, it is best to remain silent. While this guy is not necessarily correct on everything, there is no global warming and only dolts like Al Gore would promote it. The cure for cancer has been known for over 50 years, and only "science" keeps the world medicated for it and dying because it generates so much wealth. And by the way, homeschooling creates the highest percentage of intelligence in the world. Your public school education will tell you otherwise
@Tumenihobbies I hope the irony in your last post was intended, and that your odd assertions are just jokes.
If not...I'm so very sorry for you. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Seriously, whoever home-schooled you has done you a great disservice. I wish you the best of luck when you get out into the rest of the world. Don't get discouraged when you find out so much of what you were taught is untrue. Don't be afraid to consider other people's views and do your OWN research. Good luck.
OMG look at both sides of an argument, no way! All those who are complaining about this video, have your selfs sterilized to save the earth, and to rid us of your herd mentality. (flame responsibly ;)
No the earth is not warming, and CO2 is viliified as a green house gas and pollutant but is less then 1% of ambient air!. The real cause of man made global warming that is fraud is borne out of Emron in a Scheme to tax carbon based fuels to perpetrate the largest heist in global theft ever attemprted in history of man. Sun activity from the early 80s till mid 90s effectively caused measurable warming. Climatologist Phil Jones has fessed up to no global warming what so ever since 1996 till 2011.
Are you kidding me? Co2 trails temperature? Come on you can't believe that, and Co2 traps sun rays inside the atmosphere and that's why it gets hotter
And no one is saying that we should get rid of all Co2, that's an absurd stick-man argument, that's like saying eating 1 apple is healthy but if your eating 70 and someone says you shouldn't their not saying don't eat any apples their saying HAVE A HEALTHY PORTION
Your argument is so bad, saying that because 25 years ago people said the earth was cooling and then now their apologizing? Couldn't that argument be used for how the earth is flat? "Well a while ago we said the earth was flat now people say its round its so easy to say were smarter now, how do u know its not a cube?"
I wrote a research paper that pretty much said all the same stuff one year ago (before I saw this today) I wonder how water vapor will become public enemy number 1 in 30 years...
I watched a couple of your vids a while back, and as I recall you were quite funny with a clever sense of humor. This makes me wonder whether or not you've seen the Potholer54 series (mentioned by someone else here, previously) where he goes through a lot of the science on global warming, along with some critique of it. It's a nice informative watch if you feel up to it.
Oops. I see now this is an old vid. You probably have seen it by now.
You've bought into a few widespread but well-debunked factual inaccuracies with largely ideological origins. I think you should do more research before abusing the public platform you've established. With great power comes...etc.
The first thing you should research is the "exponential growth function". Your junior high science teacher was right, based on nothing more than simple math. Will it matter if he's off by 10 years? 20? 50? (Maybe if 50, or 100.)
@onbesnedenberelul Did you know that human influences actually increase amount of forest in the world and help maintain it? Yeah, we do something called "replanting". Across the world there are a ridiculous amount of laws that protect the trees. Weather is change, you can't think that there is only summer, winter, autumn, and spring in the weather.
Furthermore, do you deny solar activity as an applicant to climate or weather change? It would be ignorant to say such. Global warming is silly.
Humans have a low impact on the climate. Regardless of who's fault it is, the main problem is the melting of the ice caps. The ice acts as a giant mirror reflecting a great deal of light energy. The surface area of our natural mirror is gradually fading away. We can only guess the effects of the additional energy the Earth will receive from the Sun.
@onbesnedenberelul Your funny. See If we really want to "save the world" we should just kill all the farm animals... You know, cuz methane is 10X more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2. Another thing, statistics show that temperature change actually patterns SOLAR activity way better than CO2 releases globally. Human caused global warming is false and to deny it could save us Trillions of dollars and billions of happy faces. :) Just do more of your own research bud.
When I did a mock trial in school, because it was a public school they werent alowed to use a bible, so they grabbed the first thing they could find, which happened to be a copy of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth.'' I was not amused
global cooling was only really in a few mags and was blown away by the sci community as flat out wrong , the world is getting hotter fact tho there is still a debate on the major factor ..tho most studies by groups (US,UK,UN,China) who activly lose out from there findings i.e no incentive to "fake" alarmist data show man to be a main factor.
The real Q is it worth the cost to do anything about or if its even pos.
POTHOLER54 has a video that deals with every single fallacy (and there were lots of them) you presented in this video. This includes solar forcing (you talk about the sun heating up the earth) and also the terrible fallacy that any one admitting carbon dioxide causes global warming wants to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I cant listen anymore just watch the previous video. It actually addresses the science. THE SCIENCE!
The environmentalist movement is nothing but a front for the Marxist movement...They will lie about anything as along as they reach thier goals..a Global Marxist domination and Government..They do more harm to the environment because they are politically polarized..Try it..Go to a "green" meeting..it's full of a bunch of Socialists that sit there and talk crap about all the anti-Socialists (you know people for freedom)..why would any thinking person want to be involved with Socialism/Marxism?
@RebelManCam Ok sorry..I was not intending to insult..just inspire..it is just what I have experienced...I did not used to think this until I went to some environmental meetings with an open heart concerned about the environment and our world and what I got was a Marxist glee club..and the insults were hard and heavy. I just think the evironmental issues, if anything and of all issues should not be politically laced and in my experience the environmental movement is lead and run by Marxists.
Okay cool, although I am indeed a Libertarian Socialist I do agree with you that environmental issues shouldn't be politically laced. As a matter of fact I have no idea why Marxist would lead an environment movement in the first place. They shouldn't even talk about political parties! They should have discussed the problem...
It was 103 degrees today asshole.A new record in most parts of the US.All the ice on all the mountains in the entire world is melting,for the first time in human history.You are a idiot.You said "please flame responsibly",wtf??If I ever met you I would like to run my hand through your hair.That was nice was it not??You might not like the way I do it though.
But hybrids are still a good choice, because the lower carbon monoxide emissions means less pollutants that can interfere with our respiratory systems.
@ITSbigwillystyle While fuel efficient vehicles are good, hybrids are worse for the environment then other cars, because of the chemicals involved in making the batteries and computer. Honestly in terms of total environmental impact, it'd be better off driving a big old steel car instead of a modern plastic hybrid.
In my (uninformed) opinion, the problem is less what we're putting out, it's what we're using up. Basically, we depend on oil for many things. We can use other things for energy and lubricant. But plastics?
If you know about ice ages, then you should know that when the Earth comes out of one it will get warmer. It is actually true that approximately 83% of statistics are made up.
Global warming is a government scam intended to tax you for breathing and putting co2 into the air.
josh18230 5 days ago
I'm sorry but I have lived 23 years in Canada's north. I can honestly admit that these past years I've witnessed a record breaking summer and a record breaking winter for being abnormally warmer. Sure it could be an outlier, but it is always better to be cautious. Is the planet going to melt in 50 years. No it wont. But our planet getting warmer should be accepted as FACT. Think of it. Our pop. is growing. Our energy demands our growing. Once 3rd world countries are developing = more consumers.
LongBow1600 5 days ago
wow, what a bunch of jerks. Why is it that anyone that has a different opinion than you is either stupid or dishonest?
can we attack the argument instead of the presenter?
whatsthisish 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whatsthisish "can we attack the argument instead of the presenter?"
I'm confused by this comment.
Aren't people addressing the factual errors and misrepresentations in the video?
And in my opinion someone with a pattern of errors should be called out.
What do YOU call it when somebody misrepresents facts? I would say they are either misinformed or dishonest. I would use the former if it appeared to be a mistake, and the latter if I have trouble believing it's an accidental error.
iridescentsquids 5 days ago
Dear people who watch this crap: please base your ideas on something other than the the ramblings of uneducated know-it-alls. Go buy or download a book instead.
Theelepeltjel 6 days ago
I feel like I just went through an entire class on World War 2 history. From a guy who does not know the difference between Japan and China.
mrnevernice 1 week ago 5
Ahhhh....seriously talk to a climate scientist. You just could not be more mistaken regarding CO2.....gaaahhhhhh.....We do NOT ignore ths SUN! Seriously do you think every Ph.D. on the planet is THAT retarded! There is a reason why CO2 is more important than water vapor....Seriously...you should know this. Do you not do ANY research before you do these videos?
pauliexcluded1 2 weeks ago
@pauliexcluded1 "Do you not do ANY research before you do these videos?"
Sadly, I think he does. A lot of the facts that he gets wrong are very easy to verify. You should see the doozies in his other science-topic vids. Given how easy some of this info is to confirm or disconfirm, I think he's simply being dishonest.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids Hanlon's razor my friend. Let us hope that this is simply a matter of our failing to educate the public on such matters....
pauliexcluded1 2 weeks ago
@pauliexcluded1 I think the guy's actually very bright and good at what he does, so I can't really attribute his factual errors to stupidity. It's some level of dishonesty...perhaps starting with himself.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
In junior high, his science teacher said something stupid, and now he's used that to open his environmental propaganda video. I can deal with smug people, but this guy is bothering me because he's an idiot who talks like a smug knowitall. Knowitalls are bad enough when they are actually smart.
Souleclipsed81 2 weeks ago
HERETIC!!!
AndyAce83 2 weeks ago
I don't really care about global warming. I just need to keep it away for more few years.
ajudaaduja 2 weeks ago
to say that humans can change the weather is sheer lunacy. and i dont care how its spelled or my grammer in typing. if you think mankind can change the weather, i have ocean front property in arizona to sell ya. i got it from jimmy carter in 79, when he said we would run out of oil in 10 yrs
ken2999 2 weeks ago
@ken2999 "to say that humans can change the weather is sheer lunacy"
meh...
Ego and confidence doesn't count for much on issues of science, and baseless hyperbole abounds on this topic--on both sides of the issue.
I'm not hearing an actual argument from you, or any evidence for your assertion. So, again: meh....
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@ken2999 No one ever said we would run out of oil in 10 yrs. We will not run out of oil in 1000 years. However it has, and will continue to, become more and more economically inviable as a primary energy source. We need to use our cheap source of energy to develop a sustainable energy infrastructure while we still can. Just because alarmist say dumb things throughout history does not mean there are not issues to be addressed.
pauliexcluded1 2 weeks ago
THE PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE IS A CONSERVATIVE-LEANING THINK TANK.
Wow, I thought this channel was going to be balanced. Fuck me for believing in people.
wizardsbane 2 weeks ago 4
@wizardsbane Whats the problem with "Conservative leaning"? I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded. At least take a look at what they have to say - you hear far more of the other perspective
SuperMcbatman 2 weeks ago
@SuperMcbatman "Whats the problem with "Conservative leaning"?"
I'm against intentionally qualifying any learning, personally. Not against hearing somebody's personal opinion.
"Learning" usually assumes there is an good faith effort to present facts accurately. What would you call a "learning" process that does NOT make that good faith effort?
I assert that the fellow making these videos often fails to make that effort, on a number of topics, usually the more politically charged ones.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@SuperMcbatman The problem with a conservative-leaning think tank studying anything related to global climate change is that the conservative position in America is that climate change doesn't exist or it isn't caused by human intervention. Science is also not biased. Partisan science is bad. This isn't a moral issue, the two sides do not contribute equally. In a debate about whether the world is flat or not, the side that denies all evidence except their own that it's flat contributes nothing.
wizardsbane 2 weeks ago
@wizardsbane
Not to mention, having the people who think the world is 6000 years old and people walked with dinosaurs - aren't the people you want determining the nuances of climate change.
Mathenaut 2 weeks ago
@Mathenaut why?
guardianewjedijoel 4 days ago
Um, acid rain was real, the reason it doesn't come up any more is American manufacturing was gutted, it's still a problem in China.
Mehtaphorical 3 weeks ago
I really hate the "treat both sides equally" argument. On one side we have 99% of the scientific community and on the other we have the oil companies who have put in millions of dollars into "research" that disagrees with climate change. Go ahead try and find one scientific paper that disagrees with global warming that wasn't sponsered by companies that would have an interest in people not beliving it.
starofcctv94 3 weeks ago
@starofcctv94 Yawn. Really...I'm mean really. You can't be that stupid. Can you?
andyz0007 2 weeks ago
@andyz0007 Wow, what a well constucted argument! You have completly changed my mind!
starofcctv94 2 weeks ago
Thumbs up again, subscribed.
TCupUK 3 weeks ago
Global Warming leads to eventual "Global Cooling", that is what leads to the Ice Age. When the temperature rises enough, the oceans cycle will halt, when this happens that will lead to the next Ice Age. Not that it wasn't going happen in the cycle of Earth anyway, BUT the holes in our atmosphere will speed that up quite nicely. That is the problem.
robplaysguitarr 3 weeks ago
I cannot be less worried about fictitious anthropogenic global warming.
Lightf00t1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is nothing but misinformation
Plenty things could happen
I could win the lotto, i never do
Thinking i could win the lotto should i spend the money now?
Well i could win the lotto so shouldn't i count on it happening? Of course not!!!
None of this is based on proven science.
It is all hypothetical.
Since when do we make disicions based on hypothetical scenarios.
We are better and smarter than this!
We need to look at the people who claim these things, and why they are claiming them.
tiffcomp 3 weeks ago
@tiffcomp "Since when do we make disicions based on hypothetical scenarios"
hypothetical? Or predictions. We make decisions based on predictions ALL THE TIME!
"We need to look at the people who claim these things, and why they are claiming them."
Goes both ways. On the one hand we have climate scientists. On the other hand we have politicians, talk show radio hosts, oil companies, bloggers, etc.
Who is more likely to accurately understand the subject so as to make better predictions?
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
CO2 - good when we have enough plants to consume it.
2012 - does not have enough plants to consume CO2.
Excess CO2 - is still an issue, whether you would like to explain water vapor and solar flares as factors of global climate shift or not.
TheBoringVegCookie 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the carbon tax is only being pushed because nato currently need funding..nato always brings up the issue of funding and everytime they want money congresshave to sign for it and its a long process..the carbon tax will give nato full funding...do a bit of research on it..its a scam people...wake up b4 they implement it and we are stuck with it
chopin999 3 weeks ago
Before there were fossil fuels, there was 65% more life on earth and sea levels were 60 metres lower. Global warming is nuclear fiction from the stupid and paid
JonThm 4 weeks ago
Another way not to pollute is to either hunt for yourself or buy local if you like to eat meat. Those awesome trees being talked about in this video happen to be cleared away in the rainforest for your hamburger cows. Humans eat meat at such a great frequency that rainforest needs to be cut down to make room for all its meat cows.
Note: Huge animals create a lot of waste. And we keep breeding them.
thelovelyratkitten 1 month ago
Well to much of anything will be destructive.
scienceatheism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The world has been cooling for 13 years. When you were still in high school! High school biology explains that man cannot control the level carbon dioxide in the air only photosynthesis can
MyJonJonify 1 month ago
The world has been cooling for 13 years. When you were still in high school! High school biology explains that man cannot control the level carbon dioxide in the air only photosynthesis can
MyJonJonify 1 month ago
In junior high you were taught that green plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide from the air
JonThm 1 month ago
One of the most informative things I learned in college that pertains to this topic is that the Earth goes through warm and cool phases. In my environmental science class, we went over how the Earth is currently in a warm phase and the Earth will begin to cool again in the next couple hundred years or so.
xchucktatorshipx 1 month ago
@xchucktatorshipx wow. no shit? You learned that in school? You must go to some awesome school. The rest of us get taught that gravity is a theory and global warming (climate change or whatever) is a fact.
mixmastermeeks 1 month ago
Get a nice check from the Kochs for this video?
diodiodiooo 1 month ago
Global warming was nuclear fiction 13 years ago. Free carbon dioxide in the air has not changed for two centuries due to the action of photosynthesis
JonThm 1 month ago
Global Warming or not, before we know it everyone will die from cancer, so please, just see this "Global Warming" as "Global Infecting human beings with alot of CO2 giving them all cancer" lets be honest, more and more people are dying from cancer.
RSKorosiya 1 month ago
@RSKorosiya Well, I remember one of the news stations saying that some doctor in Europe, cured this one guy's cancer. I think they said they used Baking soda, somehow? Then the Government, took away his license for doing so. (I think that's how it happened, I could be wrong.) Sounds crazy, I know. But if you Google it you should find the article.
hellbreaker6666 1 month ago
why does your skin make you look like your suffering from kidney failure?
TheGRAclan 1 month ago in playlist More videos from WhatYouOughtToKnow
this video made me subscribe. thank you!!!!
Spazzboy911 1 month ago
gso619 1 month ago
This guy takes a couple facts from a couple sources and blows them out of proportion. He complains about removing CO2, but guess who produces it: us. We have unnatural levels from fossil fuels, that's why. This guy is sort of biased.
Rankpenguin 2 months ago
The statist (modern day liberal) has no intent on "saving the planet", just continuing to empower himself with powers he has never had before.
Thus is the nature of the left.
EmperorEmpanada 2 months ago
why are these videos under 5 million views? e_e
jsomerville85 2 months ago
@ledawg1138 *response
Treefingrs 2 months ago
Good Video that all people that believe holding farts will save the environment should watch, but Sustainability is Eugenics. I don't trust people that use that world.
904PinballZine 3 months ago
Wow, this guy sucks at everything.
Treefingrs 3 months ago
@Treefingrs What detailed responce to his video. Very bold.
ledawg1138 2 months ago
Yes, al Gore is a fucking idiot. Never the less, anyone with a college education knows that increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide will increase the temperature, bu Carbon Dioxide traps heat.
gulbirk 3 months ago
Wow. Goes to show, just because you act like you know what you're talking about doesn't mean you do. This guy is so far out of touch with actual scientific fact, and yet so sure of himself, its almost laughable--but mostly its a little scary. For someone who thinks his little math tricks are so clever, I would've expected a little more thought and respect for the scientific method.
sadlkfjdsal 3 months ago
@sadlkfjdsal take a look at some of the stats comparing the amount of heat C02 traps compared to H20. Considering how much influence H20 has on the temperature and how much of it there is, it's ridiculous to think that C02 has a significant effect.
It should also be noted that most scientists would say that environmental science is very complicated and that there are too many factors to be sure of anything. Although many are saying that it is the sun, not man that has the primary influence
QuelDroma366 2 months ago
@QuelDroma366 The vast majority of scientific evidence is in opposition to this. I cited a recent report from "Nature" below (doi:10.1038/nature.2011.9538) as an example in another response below.
I agree that the science is complicated and that theories aren't proven, but supported by evidence. Still, if someone says there's a 99% probability (thereby acknowledging a 1% chance to the contrary) of a particular thing, is that not evidence enough? If not, what is?
sadlkfjdsal 1 month ago
@sadlkfjdsal He is actually saying correct facts. Give me one incorrect fact he said, your clearly trying to sound smart and quarrelsome, but you really aren't, perhaps he is wrong about minor details but for the most part he is exquisite.
ProfessionalGam3rz 2 months ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz Well...you (and this guy in the video) may be doing exactly what he warns against in the first part of his video: fitting data to meet an argument.
As tempting as it is to say that trailing CO2 indicated a reversed causal relationship to what Gore presented, that is not the scientific consensus. Why? Is it because all of these scientists are corrupt?
The fact is, the "lag" is consistent with the science that supports the same causal relationship Gore suggests. (cont...)
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids I am not implying scientists are corrupt I am saying that modern day scientists very little research the problem before trying to find a cure. I have spoken to 2 professors here in Israel during their lectures and both said that CO2 is unlikely to cause global warming, other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2. In fact like he said scientists were sure a few years back that we were heading to an ice age...
ProfessionalGam3rz 2 months ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz "other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2. In fact like he said scientists were sure a few years back that we were heading to an ice age..."
Your conversations with two scientists do not reflect the current consensus, or consensus among climatologists for the last 15 years, for that matter.
"a few years back", in fact many many decades back up to the present, it was well understood that C02 causes warming. Nothing new.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz " other natural gases cause it far more in far less amounts then we produce CO2"
on this particular point...I don't think it's at all relevant that there are gasses that are more effective at holding heat in our atmosphere than CO2. What matters is, are CO2 levels rising in such a way that they are causing global warming. If other cases aren't having that effect, what's the point of even bringing them up? It's a red herring.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids We produce Mathane and Nirous oxide too, Nitous Oxide holds heat way better then CO2 and Mathane wich is produced while farintg destroys the Ozone.
ProfessionalGam3rz 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids In fact Nitrous Oxide obsorbes almost 300 times more heat per molicule then Carbon dioxide and Mathane does 21 times more, yet nobody says anything about them.
ProfessionalGam3rz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfessionalGam3rz "yet nobody says anything about them."
seriously? You can't figure that out all by yourself?
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz Yes, but what do we produce more of? We don't constantly churn out Nitrous Oxide and Methane. CO2 lasts up to around 100 years, so does Nitrous Oxide, and methane lasts about 12 years. CO2 is probably the biggest factor in human caused climate change, and it is the simplest to reduce. That's why we focus on it.
Rankpenguin 2 months ago
@Rankpenguin Dude think about it every creature to fart produces mathane, CO2 is naturall and used by plants so its good, Nitrous Oxide is also used quiet a lot, not to mention that CO2 doesnt trap much heat at all so even if a car drives 20 miles 5 farts from cow will still do more damage.
ProfessionalGam3rz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfessionalGam3rz "Dude think about it every creature to fart produces mathane, CO2 is naturall and used by plants so its good...CO2 doesnt trap much heat at all"
Quick question: are you serious with these arguments, or being sarcastic?
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz (con't)
I won't pretend I'm a climate scientist, but it didn't take me long to find many references to exactly this issue and the science behind the claim that the lag is not consistent with this video-guys' assertions. (basically, the beginning of a warming cycle in turn accelerates the release of CO2, which in turn increases warming...a snowball effect, no pun intended)
It's hard for me not to see this guy as blatantly hypocritical on the 'interpretation of data' issue.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
Comment removed
sadlkfjdsal 1 month ago
@ProfessionalGam3rz Please point me to these stats. The vast majority of scientific evidence is in opposition to this. There is a report from "Nature" on a very recent study of yet another model of the earth's climate that evidences anthropogenic global warming:
doi:10.1038/nature.2011.9538
I know of no scientific studies which back your position. If you are telling me the facts are correct, please show me how you "know" this. Otherwise, yours is a position of faith--the religion of denial.
sadlkfjdsal 1 month ago
Sheffield University use A steam plasma to do nuclear fusion
JonThm 3 months ago
To buy the current global warming narrative, you have to believe 4 things:
~ The world is getting warmer
~The warming is caused by humans
~The warming will lead to a calamity
~ Spending trillions of dollars might fix the problem
If you don't believe in any one of these, then you don't believe in the global warming narrative.
BTW, when the whole global warming hysteria is proven to be false, those who espouse it will just move on the the next hysteria. There's plenty to choose from.
koyunbaba73 3 months ago
@koyunbaba73 Skepticism in general is good thing. But why is it that the anti-GW narrative never involves actual science?
Point 1: The only science supporting the claim that the earth is not get warmer has been discredited, or is too vague to even call science.
Point 2: A debatable point, but, again, one with a tremendous amount of scientific backing.
Point 3: There is little doubt among legit climatologists that there is real potential for calamity.
Point 4: "fix" is a misleading word.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@koyunbaba73 (continued)
I guess my point is, a reasonable person might see evidence for points 1, 2 and 3.
But there are things skeptics on both sides can probably agree on: Because this issue is highly political, the science is getting buried. We have to remain skeptical of any answers to these questions we find on talk radio or other media sources, oil company initiatives, etc. As much as possible we should be relying on science, not PR campaigns or talking points.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids I agree with you. Probably the most famous scientist who believes the first 3 but not the 4th is Bjorn Lomborg. Check out his video "Our priorities for saving the world".
It's really important that we ask what can we do and what should we do. We can't blindly follow hysterics like Al Gore. Common sense is needed.
koyunbaba73 3 months ago
@koyunbaba73
Absolutely.
But if we are going to mention Gore, we have to note that the "hysterics" (vs reason) run on BOTH sides of the issue. Skeptic positions are also big money makers for conservative politicians who are oil company and (some) big-business cronies.
It annoys me that politicians filter the science right out of science.
Some would even have us believe there is no danger at all.
Even Lomborg has said GW is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today".
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
Flame!! =D
dan122189 3 months ago in playlist More videos from WhatYouOughtToKnow
Great video :-)
Nilsy1975 3 months ago
Make fresh water, save life
JonThm 3 months ago
That darn sun should feel bad for what it's doing...
moshpotpaul 3 months ago 2
I like this guy after this video. It's good that he was onto this in 2008, everyone knows it's a hoax now.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive If by "everybody" you mean "some people", and if by "know" you mean "believe".
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids Nope. Everybody knows this is a hoax, some just pretend that it's real.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive Sure. It's a well known fact that conservative tv and radio hosts are EXPERTS on the subject. Veritable global warming Einsteins. And we all know that the so called "real" climate scientists who actually study it for a living are faking everything, snickering under their breath as they play along with one of the greatest, most elaborate conspiracies ever concocted (with the exception of evolution, of course. That's a conspiracy that involves almost ALL scientists!)..meh...such bs
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids IPCC email scandal. That is all.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive ...That's not science, buddy. That's politics.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids They were scientists, and my original point was that it was a hoax and those emails prove that it is.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive If you want to believe what they say on the radio shows and such, that's fine. Go ahead.
But know this: there is actual, objective expert analysis on the subject of those emails available if you care to look. If you prefer to listen to people who make a living selling controversy, that's your prerogative.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids I don't know who you're talking about but anyway.. There is more objective, actual evidence to the contrary. Global warming, lol...
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive I would think if you're going to site the IPCC emails you would know something about the actual committees (six, I believe) that investigated them. You won't find much mention of the findings by the bloggers and talk shows that relished in breaking (and creating) the story, and who fed you the story you were so hungry to consume.
Why? Because the findings of all committees were unanimous that no fraud or SCIENTIFIC misconduct occurred. And that's...well... not as exciting.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids OH wow IPCC approved committees clearing IPCC members of wrongdoing and I thought this was all a hoax.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive Again, take whatever side you want, just get your facts straight.
The six:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US).
Now, if you want to ASSUME these are ALL part of some giant conspiracy without looking into it...what can I say... Knock yourself out. It's your brain.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids I think it's time for another Copenhagen hahaha. Seriously, believing in "man made Climate Change" is so 2007.
sydneymassive 3 months ago
@sydneymassive You're doing a terrific job at making my point. For most people, climate change has very little to do with science or with any effort to find out what is true or false.
This is partly because most people aren't scientists. But also because the only way they have learned about the issue: Politically charged TV, radio, blogs, etc, that are nothing more than politics and PR nonsense. Like the video above.
But that's how you have learned about the issue, so that's what you repeat.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago 9
@iridescentsquids Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear , which covers the whole hoax that is global warming, global cooling, or the new and improved climate change. I'm not sure what else they can call it. The is well soured. Take time out and read it. Better yet, follow the money. Mr. Gore has made over 90 million dollars off this massive hoax. As if, scientist never get it wrong...right. Oh, I am I to assume you are, a scientist?
arubberball 3 months ago
@arubberball Home schooled? Very poor grammar, even for a youtube quip.
Michael Crichton writes fiction. Dramatic fiction.
You are not a scientist, either. So lets stop all this gum flapping and listen. To what the actual scientists are saying. Not writers of fiction, or radio talk show hosts.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids Real scientists? Professor Phil Jones- Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Dr Murari Lal, Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified. Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035. TIME magazine1974 Another Ice Age? Crichton's did believed in global warming, until he did the research for his book. grammar cop, lol
arubberball 3 months ago
@arubberball Professor Phil Jones!? Either you have ignored the fact or simply don't believe that he's been cleared of any scientific wrong doing. Meaning the science itself was not faulty.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to attempt to discredit an entire body of science, not by addressing the science itself, but through a PR campaign like the so called "climategate". None of these examples you give discredits science, because none of it is science.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids It's also equally asinine to presume there is, an irrefutable consensus on global warming, i.e., climate change. I can produce over 500 articles and, opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and scholars who challenge the man-made explanation of global warming.This is just another ingenious way to control people and, attempt to redistribute wealth.Good luck at being an useful idiot. Al made 100 million off this hoax.
arubberball 3 months ago
@arubberball Yea, like Crichton isn't rolling in dough. You dolt.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids But, Crichton isn't calling for the end of the world by using flawed data. Huge difference. You need to work on your skills in defending a complete fraud. No need to reply, you're a waste of my time.
arubberball 3 months ago
@arubberball I understand you are convinced it's a fraud, but really, you've presented nothing but the talking points from an extensive PR campaign. That should bring anybody pause, as it's inherent in such campaigns to present only half-truths and tortured data.
The same CAN be said of Gore and other non-scientists promoting a point of view, but there is NOTHING better about your perspective than his, because you offer NO SCIENCE to back your media-based opinion.
Start with the science.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@arubberball (continued)
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with being a Crichton fan, or J.K. Rowling fan for that matter. I can't say that it's NOT theoretically possible to resurrect dinosaurs as he posits, or that it's NOT theoretically possible to create a global conspiracy on such a massive and extensive scale. I'm saying simply that he, as a writer of fiction, doesn't merit special consideration just because he writes well.
Entertaining? Undeniably. But so is cirque de soleil.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@arubberball (continued)
Besides, I am not the once convinced of any point of view, except that there is a lot of garbage out there motivated by corrupt politicians and completely, 100% biased media personalities. I also beleive that science matters.
I'm not claiming "an irrefutable consensus" on global warming. I will say that among climatologists here IS a consensus, however. Not irrefutable, but certainly not in support of Crichton's position, which you have absorbed because you like him.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@arubberball (continued)
Lastly, you mentioned "flawed data". This is an interesting talking point often used by anti-GW campaigns. The idea is simple: Point out a flaw, and the whole deck of cards is suspect.
Problem is, that's now how science works. Never has been.
Important question: Where does this tactic come from?
Answer: Politics. This is the same technique used in negative advertising. It's bull.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids YOU SIR ARE A DICK
SuperRiguy 1 month ago
@SuperRiguy lol. Care to clarify?
iridescentsquids 1 month ago
@iridescentsquids I think you got it.
SuperRiguy 1 month ago
@SuperRiguy Actually I don't. Care to clarify? Thanks so much.
iridescentsquids 1 month ago
@iridescentsquids Good thing there's lots of real science that any moron can understand. Start here. Less than 5 mins of reading. skepticalscience dot see oh em
frankvonfrauner 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frankvonfrauner "Good thing there's lots of real science that any moron can understand."
Generally speaking, I wouldn't trust a moron to get science right. I honestly don't think it's easy to properly understand a lot of the science.
Not that we shouldn't try, and the skepticalscience site at least helps people willing to consider the possibility that the battle against climate science is a dishonest PR campaign. I wish that fact mattered more, though.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@sydneymassive It's actually a tactic not dissimilar from those used by creationists to attempt to demote evolution. In the absence of traction in the scientific community, the most powerful tool to influence science-driven policies (such as GW or teaching evolution in schools) is to run a PR campaign. A massive PR campaign is actually more powerful than science when it comes to influencing politics because the science is simply too boring and complex for most people to even try to understand.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@sydneymassive And you are right about one thing: Al Gore treats the entire thing as a PR campaign. Probably because he's a politician. Just a guess.
My point: Don't mix up the science with the politics if you want to know the best science on the subject. You won't find the best science on talk radio shows, or coming out of a politicians mouth.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
I think this guy should wear a superhero outfit or something. Maybe with HC on his chest: Homeschool man.
He and bible man could be part of some kind of wonder team, fighting the oppressive facts of science with squinty looks, sarcasm, and abrupt-cut edits.
Science discovers cure for cancer...have no fear, Homeschool man is here! "Don't believe what those scientists say. Stay at home if your sick and pray! "
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
@iridescentsquids When you are stupid, it is best to remain silent. While this guy is not necessarily correct on everything, there is no global warming and only dolts like Al Gore would promote it. The cure for cancer has been known for over 50 years, and only "science" keeps the world medicated for it and dying because it generates so much wealth. And by the way, homeschooling creates the highest percentage of intelligence in the world. Your public school education will tell you otherwise
Tumenihobbies 3 months ago
@Tumenihobbies I hope the irony in your last post was intended, and that your odd assertions are just jokes.
If not...I'm so very sorry for you. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Seriously, whoever home-schooled you has done you a great disservice. I wish you the best of luck when you get out into the rest of the world. Don't get discouraged when you find out so much of what you were taught is untrue. Don't be afraid to consider other people's views and do your OWN research. Good luck.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
OMG look at both sides of an argument, no way! All those who are complaining about this video, have your selfs sterilized to save the earth, and to rid us of your herd mentality. (flame responsibly ;)
LumiAther 4 months ago
@coolbanana165 Then you wouldn't mind citing sources and explaining why he's wrong would you?
flooperduck 4 months ago
You are hilarious!
97nachotv 4 months ago
No the earth is not warming, and CO2 is viliified as a green house gas and pollutant but is less then 1% of ambient air!. The real cause of man made global warming that is fraud is borne out of Emron in a Scheme to tax carbon based fuels to perpetrate the largest heist in global theft ever attemprted in history of man. Sun activity from the early 80s till mid 90s effectively caused measurable warming. Climatologist Phil Jones has fessed up to no global warming what so ever since 1996 till 2011.
GATEANGEL744 4 months ago
Are you kidding me? Co2 trails temperature? Come on you can't believe that, and Co2 traps sun rays inside the atmosphere and that's why it gets hotter
And no one is saying that we should get rid of all Co2, that's an absurd stick-man argument, that's like saying eating 1 apple is healthy but if your eating 70 and someone says you shouldn't their not saying don't eat any apples their saying HAVE A HEALTHY PORTION
schmitty422 4 months ago
Your argument is so bad, saying that because 25 years ago people said the earth was cooling and then now their apologizing? Couldn't that argument be used for how the earth is flat? "Well a while ago we said the earth was flat now people say its round its so easy to say were smarter now, how do u know its not a cube?"
schmitty422 4 months ago
very smart, good job
CoombesKidd 4 months ago
I'm calling bullshit! This guy can't be serious, is this a satire? None of the information here is correct.
coolbanana165 4 months ago
This video is like watching a third grader explain quantum physics. This guy obviously has been fed false information from birth.
jugger97 4 months ago
I wrote a research paper that pretty much said all the same stuff one year ago (before I saw this today) I wonder how water vapor will become public enemy number 1 in 30 years...
josh18230 4 months ago
Planet Venus..... nuff said
hartman1227 4 months ago
This guy looks like Cody Rhodes
DDTphoenix 4 months ago
00:49 thats the dumbes thing I have ever heard. Do you even understand how CO works?
gulbirk 4 months ago
I watched a couple of your vids a while back, and as I recall you were quite funny with a clever sense of humor. This makes me wonder whether or not you've seen the Potholer54 series (mentioned by someone else here, previously) where he goes through a lot of the science on global warming, along with some critique of it. It's a nice informative watch if you feel up to it.
Oops. I see now this is an old vid. You probably have seen it by now.
Cheers! :)
TheSlowThinker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is GAY
GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY
Regginyaga 5 months ago
Mine said 2013... uh no
jwhite8789 5 months ago
Is your statistic statistic part of the 64-93%?
aublitius 5 months ago
This guy if so ignorant I don't know where to begin.
WhamBamThankYouMadam 5 months ago
@WhamBamThankYouMadam "is" not "if" FAIL
Youngmessage 5 months ago
@Youngmessage Ever heard of a typo? FAIL.
WhamBamThankYouMadam 5 months ago
Exponential growth function for laymen: /watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k
jamesrcollier 5 months ago
You've bought into a few widespread but well-debunked factual inaccuracies with largely ideological origins. I think you should do more research before abusing the public platform you've established. With great power comes...etc.
The first thing you should research is the "exponential growth function". Your junior high science teacher was right, based on nothing more than simple math. Will it matter if he's off by 10 years? 20? 50? (Maybe if 50, or 100.)
jamesrcollier 5 months ago
@onbesnedenberelul Did you know that human influences actually increase amount of forest in the world and help maintain it? Yeah, we do something called "replanting". Across the world there are a ridiculous amount of laws that protect the trees. Weather is change, you can't think that there is only summer, winter, autumn, and spring in the weather.
Furthermore, do you deny solar activity as an applicant to climate or weather change? It would be ignorant to say such. Global warming is silly.
Humblifier 5 months ago
Humans have a low impact on the climate. Regardless of who's fault it is, the main problem is the melting of the ice caps. The ice acts as a giant mirror reflecting a great deal of light energy. The surface area of our natural mirror is gradually fading away. We can only guess the effects of the additional energy the Earth will receive from the Sun.
TheHaku85 5 months ago
@onbesnedenberelul Your funny. See If we really want to "save the world" we should just kill all the farm animals... You know, cuz methane is 10X more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2. Another thing, statistics show that temperature change actually patterns SOLAR activity way better than CO2 releases globally. Human caused global warming is false and to deny it could save us Trillions of dollars and billions of happy faces. :) Just do more of your own research bud.
Humblifier 5 months ago
When I did a mock trial in school, because it was a public school they werent alowed to use a bible, so they grabbed the first thing they could find, which happened to be a copy of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth.'' I was not amused
Ace4929 5 months ago
if it's warming, then why did it snow for nearly an entire week in the south. it even snowed in California
girltubaplayer77 5 months ago
global cooling was only really in a few mags and was blown away by the sci community as flat out wrong , the world is getting hotter fact tho there is still a debate on the major factor ..tho most studies by groups (US,UK,UN,China) who activly lose out from there findings i.e no incentive to "fake" alarmist data show man to be a main factor.
The real Q is it worth the cost to do anything about or if its even pos.
Demo5 5 months ago
There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is doing great. The PEOPLE are fucked - George Carlin
broalonzo 5 months ago
you make me look dumb :(
Kenyee28 5 months ago
Thank you.... Just thank you.
packsandprides 5 months ago
@packsandprides That's exactly what I was thinking when I was finished watching.
breakfastdaynight 5 months ago
Plants gives out CO2 at night.
Is that right? I read that in my biology book.
killerboyfoolz 5 months ago
POTHOLER54 has a video that deals with every single fallacy (and there were lots of them) you presented in this video. This includes solar forcing (you talk about the sun heating up the earth) and also the terrible fallacy that any one admitting carbon dioxide causes global warming wants to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I cant listen anymore just watch the previous video. It actually addresses the science. THE SCIENCE!
HeadofRadio 5 months ago 26
The environmentalist movement is nothing but a front for the Marxist movement...They will lie about anything as along as they reach thier goals..a Global Marxist domination and Government..They do more harm to the environment because they are politically polarized..Try it..Go to a "green" meeting..it's full of a bunch of Socialists that sit there and talk crap about all the anti-Socialists (you know people for freedom)..why would any thinking person want to be involved with Socialism/Marxism?
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
Please do not insult political parties my friend. That is how the country will fall. I don't insult Conservatives or Liberals.
RebelManCam 5 months ago
@RebelManCam Ok sorry..I was not intending to insult..just inspire..it is just what I have experienced...I did not used to think this until I went to some environmental meetings with an open heart concerned about the environment and our world and what I got was a Marxist glee club..and the insults were hard and heavy. I just think the evironmental issues, if anything and of all issues should not be politically laced and in my experience the environmental movement is lead and run by Marxists.
doobersmanster 5 months ago
@doobersmanster
Okay cool, although I am indeed a Libertarian Socialist I do agree with you that environmental issues shouldn't be politically laced. As a matter of fact I have no idea why Marxist would lead an environment movement in the first place. They shouldn't even talk about political parties! They should have discussed the problem...
RebelManCam 5 months ago
HA! I knew it!
Ace4929 6 months ago
They should force this video in school, im just dreaming though
killerbeau95 6 months ago
iWas Watching Video Game Trailer, And Somehow iEnded Up Watching This O.o
westkap100 6 months ago
Comment removed
E4gle25 6 months ago
This guy needs to run for president
Jizzsplosion 6 months ago
zero brutus, you tard. there are ice ages abotu every 10,000 years. not just once
Scottylong969 6 months ago
It was 103 degrees today asshole.A new record in most parts of the US.All the ice on all the mountains in the entire world is melting,for the first time in human history.You are a idiot.You said "please flame responsibly",wtf??If I ever met you I would like to run my hand through your hair.That was nice was it not??You might not like the way I do it though.
profsat5 6 months ago
wow fail
JamesTheTank 6 months ago
There was an ice age. There currently isn't an ice age. Anyone else think the earth got warmer?
ZeroBrutus 6 months ago
we should worry about co, not c02
lifemetall 6 months ago
But hybrids are still a good choice, because the lower carbon monoxide emissions means less pollutants that can interfere with our respiratory systems.
ITSbigwillystyle 6 months ago
@ITSbigwillystyle While fuel efficient vehicles are good, hybrids are worse for the environment then other cars, because of the chemicals involved in making the batteries and computer. Honestly in terms of total environmental impact, it'd be better off driving a big old steel car instead of a modern plastic hybrid.
darkling9109 6 months ago
In my (uninformed) opinion, the problem is less what we're putting out, it's what we're using up. Basically, we depend on oil for many things. We can use other things for energy and lubricant. But plastics?
Astronouth7303 6 months ago
If you know about ice ages, then you should know that when the Earth comes out of one it will get warmer. It is actually true that approximately 83% of statistics are made up.
Gedionphin 6 months ago