Hobbit Homes - When I was a kid in the 60s, we had snow every winter, and days every winter when temperatures dropped below -20F (-30C). This held true into the late 70s. That’s when satellites Started monitoring global atmospheric temperatures, although it would be another 20 years before Dr Roy Spencer & Dr John Christy, working with a team of NASA scientists, were able to produce the best scientific record of mean global temperature which is available to date. At first, the record showed warming, and earned Dr Spencer NASA’s highest award for achievement. That was in the late 90s. Fast forward two decades, and the Leftist Lying Lunatics behind this global climate hoax are vilifying Dr Spencer because the satellites now prove beyond any doubt that Climate Models (used to create surface temperature records) are False. This falsification of the CO2/Climate theory is at least the third time in history when otherwise competent scientists have erred in regards to CO2 warming. Tyndall, Arrhenius, and Revelle were all refuted by their peers, and now, the father of modern Global Warming fear-mongering (James Hansen, former director of NASA’s GISS at Columbia U in NYC) has been refuted, along with the Nobel-prize-winning UN IPCC & Al Gore. How are the Climate Models refuted? They all predicted a significantly greater warming, driven by higher levels of atmospheric CO2. According to the most scientific record of atmospheric CO2 levels we can now assert there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean global temperature on time scales stretching from one day to 90 years. Paleoclimate records enable us to assert no correlation over time scales from thousands to billions of years. Sadly, after decades of climate fear-mongering, the only thing we have to show for the Trillion dollars spent are false climate models, prostituted climate scientists, greedy political activists who think they earned the right to become Masters of the Universe, ignorant generations of young folks who have never experienced any global warming at all during their lifetimes, and a Leftist global news journalism intent on preserving the narrative about Climate Change, because their Masters have promised to reward them for helping promote the fear-mongering in regards to fossil fuel consumption.
@@hellothere98765 You're misleading the argument. Considering that water is limited in where it is being sourced from. While the air itself is abundant everywhere like sunlight during the day.
@@hellothere98765 i've never bought water i use a filter. what is evian an anagram of? if i bought water i would consider the tax part of the cost of the supply chain of shipping water too me for it's purity. i would have to ignore the tests that have shown contamination in bottled water and the fact that it is in a plastic bottle full of BPA. i'm not being taxed for the oxygen i breath, just the co2 i breath out, which is the part of air plants breath to lock the carbon and emit oxygen. in britain they did once try to tax sunlight. it was known as daylight robbery
Jason Dashney - There’s an entire philosophy of management based on testing employees by pitting them against one another and observing which one resorts to emotional attack first.
@@buurzaiThe premise was not "climate scientists" but "those promoting disaster". E.g. Al Gore, Elon Musk et al. Those climate catastrophists have become rather wealthy marketing predictions and would-be climate solutions, wouldn't you agree?
@@buurzai "The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change." -Heritage Foundation 2018
Ironically, it's corporations making tens of billions off of environmental destruction. Why would fossil fuel companies spend so much time and money covering up climate change if it is not an issue?
@@russellchandler5858 Can you show me any a temp rise that has caused rapid environmental changes? Can you even find a temp rise? I can show you a diabolical plan to come up with a common currency to apply a carbon tax on us all. Listen, all governments LIE. They are pushing for this 1 world gov and preposterous lies are part of it. They tell you all this global weather garbage and you just blindly agree. We have 0 evidence. What we have is evidence of a global takeover to enslave the masses. Do some research.
I'm reminded of the story about Einstein's response to the book published by a hundred scientists trying to disprove his theory of general relativity. As the story goes, his response was "If I was wrong, one (scientist) would have been enough!"
@@Kil23Joy I think if these activists really believed humans are the main cause of climate change then I would expect them not to have children thereby creating more humans to add to the climate change
Valerie Dale I was just on “the humanist report” A channel that has almost 300,000 subs Talking about how the climate change cause the Aussie fires Pretty much a Bernie bro channel, not saying I believe all the comments but in a few comment chains, some of them have hundreds, all pretty much saying they are not having kids because of climate change I have an assumption that most of them are not having kids cause women go dry at the sight of them but out of all those comments I wouldn’t doubt at least some of them were true I also heard vasectomies are going up, but that could also be mgtow and feminism based decisions but articles are out there about dudes getting fixed over climate change too
Lol that's probably the simplest way to explain it 🤣 😅 😂 However, even without going to scientific jargon, etc, apart from the fact that a 97% of consensus over most matters is suspicious, there is another relatively simple matter: follow the money. I am willing to believe that the oil conglomerate is evil and funding whatever supports their cause. However, why am I to trust that the green conglomerate is not evil? Why would they be employing other methods? I mean, it's not like green energy and green this and green that, is also a huge industry as is the industry of recyclable materials (the latter being also very volatile since what is traded has no inherent value other than what can be "negotiated").
@@degrelleholt6314 the fact that you people don't know what scientific consensus is, shows that you shouldn't have an opinion on scientific fields, because it is highly likely you don't even know what basic terms in said field mean. Scientific consensus refers to scientific studies, and it's extremly common for studies to agree with each other, since studies aren't about opinions but facts and facts are often binary.
@@hellothere98765 Lol. Revolutionary ..... not. I don't see ANY of these left wing climate activists in India or China demonstrating over their amount of 'gases'. Many climate activists are nothing more than Socialist puppets, thinking they are helping. :) I prefer to deal in facts, not emotions. Have a nice day. :)
@@jamesholkky2706 If the people I've 'pointed' too are politically motivated and/or blindly agree as a part of the brain washed masses in regards to man made climate change ..... then yes, he would agree. I suggest you read '1984' to give my statement more context. Have a nice day. :)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
@Jack Johnson You can question the answers all you want, and in fact that is what the scientific community is all about. But what you will realise is that global warming has been tested hundreds of times and every single time they reach the same answer. It is real.
@Jack Johnson @Quack... uhh, the video clearly points out that there is concensus. Not sure what you all are smoking (but I"m sure it's natural, not man made). The video points out that what is lacking is an honest discourse on what everyone is agreeing too. 97% of all priest believe Jesus was a real man and was raised from the dead. Priest are religious experts. Now who in their right mind would question that?
Mountain Metal - Oh, that’s harsh, MM. Surely the Climate Liars plan to let some crumbs from their swindling fall onto the floor, where poor people can fight over them to survive?
Gr Ra - If you’re going to criticize others for not thinking, then you might want to try it yourself. Top executives at Big Oil companies are in bed with bureaucrats in Big Gov’t. They’ve invented an ingenious method of screwing the “ignorant masses”: impose carbon taxes based on imaginary carbon “footprints”. Create a fake “market” based on the fake footprints, which gives the appearance of being a free market. This is done to appeal to Conservatives, and create what I refer to as “corporate welfare for the rich”! How does it work? Simple. The Biggest corporations (the ones with huge, multi-billions in quarterly profits) are Big Oil. Top executives in Big Oil quietly invest in Solar & Wind power startups, and start shutting down facilities which are aimed at developing fossil fuels. This reduces their carbon footprint and “earns” them carbon credits. Who pays for these credits? We do, including every small business seeking to grow, except those who are funding the non-competitive Wind & Solar companies. See, the small business seeking to expand must necessarily increase its carbon footprint! Brilliant: it’s a Communist wet dream designed to stifle all free market entrepreneurs and eliminate incentives at the root of all real free markets, and replace them with a Gov’t-controlled pseudo-market! Supplement such fake markets with fake money, and theoretically, you can enslave the entire world’s population for the enrichment of the “Masters of the Universe” (Leftists running the One World Gov’t, and leading the New World Order). Perhaps you think you’re one of the leaders of the NWO? Think again.
Gr Ra - Democrat Gov’t bureaucrats, Leftist news media, Marxist professors, and crazy political activists are all fighting against the truth, on which all science is founded.
Edvin Storlind Not at all, I crave the truth. Unfortunately the truth has been buried by political correctness and those who dare speak it will be crucified, hence the phrase “answers that cannot be questioned”.
@@brucewilliamsstudio4932 No, but if you have questions that can't be answered you can't find the truth. And the truth cannot be questioned since it is the truth thus the truth is an answer that can't be questioned. So if you prefer having an unanswerable question you do not prefer the truth.
Critical thought isn’t always about what you know. It’s digesting what you hear and learn, making sense of it and bettering yourself. Thinking for yourself has become antithetical to belonging to a particular political party or in this case an idea...
Just like back in 2012 I have been offering the people who claim the world will end in 12 years $10K for their house and I'll let them live in it until the 13th year. At that point they have to move out. I'll double the amount for water front on the ocean. Just like with 2012 I have yet to get a taker.
Not true. I would too.I believe in climate change and believe we can do something sensible about it. Before the water makes my mansion become a house boat.
@@davidsvarrer8942 like what exactly? how about you sell your car, computer and drier and actually make a difference. short of nuclear power, dams ( which for some reason everyone has a problem with) and only having one child, nothing will change. oh good luck telling people they cant have kids
@@davidsvarrer8942 Why do you believe... belief isn't fact, belief is faith, Nazi's believed in Hitler, abused children were told to believe in Priests who abused them... come on, stop believing, if still unsure research more!
Exactly what Catherine McKenna, Canada's ex Minister of Environment said in a bar - say it loud and often enough in the House of Commons and people will believe it! She is a classic manipulator of the truth.
@@petrhariprasadhajic9570 try common sense. Theres a vid on YT , made by a US TV Company, in 1978, predicting a new ICE AGE within 5 yrs. Just because the USA had a unusually hard winter, with snow falling further south than for--?? a few decades. People are still waiting for it----AND the one predicted in 1993. Of course, things got even more confusing, when global warming threatened, a couple of yrs later. NOW--we are warned about CLIMATE CHANGE. ere--HASN'T THE WORLD DONE THAT SINCE DAY ONE????????????????????????????
@@franksmith9420 Pls excuse but how can you verify Your CO2 stats? Seriously. Since humans have not been around for millions of years, there is some question about the CO2 cycles? Pls advise??
@@franksmith9420 the ocean releases almost all co2. From all the bacteria look it up its a fact. The “plants” algae is not suppose to take it up it creates it. As the more co2 the more plants and oxygen there willbe. Allsow the earth would still be in the ice age if it wasn’t for some warming dont you agree? Take the time do some research your self and dont take what others say as a fact.
Leet me say like this. You look at 100 papers. 10 of those say its a warming. 5 of those says its dangerous. You could argue that 50% of the pappers is saying its dangerous.
It's always something. I'm 63 & when I was 10, my teacher said in 50 years the world would be so overpopulated that we'd each only have a square foot to live in. Scared me half to death. He had us stand on a floor tile of that size, pretty much shoulder to shoulder. Now let's scare the kids about the climate. Golly.
I'm 67 and remember the same things. When I worked at Apple, one of the videos we produced talked about population density - and it turns out that if you allowed for the density pattern in Singapore, you could fit the entire planet's population inside of Texas. People who live in the big cities need to take a drive across Arizona...
"Do you think" and "Do you agree", these questions alone should raise red flags, because science is not about personal feelings and thoughts, is a bout hard facts and experience.
Science may not be about personal feelings, yet those feeling will find whatever truth they seek! All they know is that they can't prove/disprove climate change! How do we know if the change in temperature is due to the cycle of the earth? We say we are so smart on this subject yet how long have we actually been tracking the earth's weather and temperature??? Infantile by the scientists measurement of the earth's age....
@@ytbabbler Global warming is yesterdays news and is complete rubbish. Climate change, ahhh.....well yes, that`s happening naturally and has been for billions of years, instead of just coming up with stupid comments why don`t you try and use, common sense, a little research and watch the above clip from beginning to end, it`s all in there you may learn something. "Climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous." There are no facts to back up that claim, they are ignorant presumptions, predictions and speculations which so far haven`t come true. These climate religionists have been making these silly claims for decades and not one of their claims and predictions have come true. They predicted that by the year 2000 the polar icecaps would be melted, polar bears would be extinct and that tens of millions of climate change "refugees" would be flooding the west, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Netherlands would be uninhabitable and most of the Himalayan glaciers would have melted and that the Arctic ice sheet would be gone, children born after this time would never see snow. All predicted by "climate change" scientists and propagated by irresponsible governments and misinformed news networks all over the world and of course none of it happened, thankfully there are more polar bears now than there were 20 years ago. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age believe it or not so obviously it`s very slowly getting warmer. Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago so when these climate evangelists say the earth is warming they are correct but not in the way they think. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today. And now they rely on grooming and frightening children to get their dangerous agenda across! Anyone who disagrees with this agenda is called a DENIER, put in the same bracket as a holocaust denier which just shows how despicable these people are getting.
You totally can. Just most people are pretty uninformed or use "Scientific papers" from oil companies to make their point which can make it pretty frustrating...
@@DerVagabundli I'm being serious when I say I get raise this subject around people - people who have never read a scientific people in their lives and travel allover the wold on planes every year become silent at best and hostile at worst - they have been programmed As for the science being on 'your' side - I respectfully disagree and think anyone who believes this garbage has no idea of what they are talking about As for oil companies, they are owned and controlled by the very same people pushing the climate change nonsense
@@yingyang1008 You'd be pretty fooled to think oil companies are arguing for evidence of climate change. I have read a lot about this subject, I'd say even more about the climate sceptic side. So far there has been no evidence to suggest the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong.
@@DerVagabundli What makes you think the vast majority of climate scientists agree on anything? Did you speak to them? Or are you just repeating information that was pumped into your brain?
@@yingyang1008 I did actually speak to some of them, as they are my professors who worked on the Leibnitz Rechenzentrum and it's climate models... How about you? I've also read the infamous Cook 2013 study and the "follow up studies" said to debunk it, which they don't.
When I was in college (back in the dark ages) one of my favorite courses was using statistics, which taught us how to select and manipulate data to prove or disprove a position. The class was divided into two, and each week we were given a set of data; 1/2 took one position, the other half took an opposing position. Very interesting to see how using the same data we could present opposite interpretations.
@@lesliemudford468 Exactly, facts really don't matter. Statistics are just a tool manipulated to validate an agenda. Which we can see is very effective.
That’s honestly a fantastic class that should be taught to every student (add that to the long list of useful things to learn that aren’t taught but useless things are).
Consensus is not a scientific method but it is used in politics and religion. Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main tools of the scientific method, not consensus.
@@janimelender2674 Why do you feel the need to exclude and belittle. Do you feel superior? Or are you a pathetic individual that is threatened by any opposing opinion. Why does that threaten you? Are you really that insecure?
@@nicofonce it actually isn't. No idea in science is ever put to a vote. Ideas are introduced and vetted in peer review and empirical validation which happens in the arena of research papers submitted to scientific journals. I strongly recommend you watch at least the first three minutes of this video for clarification: ruclips.net/video/MTJQPyTVtNA/видео.html
@@nicofonce there was also a geocentric consensus that the Earth was the centre of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Consensus is a religious method not Scientific.
Science must be reproducible and observable. A former ODA member of mine was part of the security for the convention that the 97% fraud came from. Everyone had to sign in before going in. After the propaganda convention started most of the visitors left with some staying for free food and booze. The sign-in list was what Gore used to hold up during is speeches to claim the 200+ scientists agreed with him.
Thank you so much for this rational and even-handed discussion. Down here at street level, it is next to impossible to have a discussion with prople who have never studied climate, who have ready quotes from the "experts," and who have no idea what a political football they are running with, having accepted everything the news has gravely reported as indisputable "settled science." It is very encouraging to hear actual results and analysis of scientific papers, and polls of actual meteorologists and climatologists. Really, who cares what a chemist or biologist "agrees" with, in a field that they have zero expertise in? "Scientist" is too broad a term. Do we consult entomologists for their ideas on quantum theory? Do we rely on medical general practitioners for advice that only a trained specialist is qualified to offer? That politics has coopted a contested scientific endeavor into an absolutism for policymaking, to the tune of trillions of economy crippling dollars, is extremely troubling. That there can be no disagreement is about as unscientific as it gets. Anyway, thanks for the much-needed breath of fresh air. Being treated like you're crazy is just so tiresome.
I imagine we're not far from "Algorithms determined your comment demonstrates logic. Further displays of logic may result in termination of your account."
@Jackoff Richardson Do be honest, or at least try, would me bothering to look up any evidence reeeeeeeally change your mind? Not that I can't of course, I do that on a daily basis, but if I took a few minutes to look up any respectable climate science paper on arxiv, would you reeeeeeeeally read it past the title? Or the abstract?
@Jackoff Richardson Kids these days. You want data debunking what is referred in this video? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding if you'll really read it or not. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Now it's a study referencing many studies. In essence, there's no better way to extract a number such as 97% if this type of work isn't done. If you do read it fully, then we can have a conversation, as it literally goes against the entirety of the premise of this video.
@Jackoff RichardsonNow that I think about it, I don't know if I can post links in youtube's comments. So here the title of it : Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Put that in google. It's tremendously easy to find. When you have read that, maybe we'll be able to have a conversation?
The phrase "the science is done" is unscientific, as it is aimed at stifling any questioning of results or methodology, which is a corner stone of the scientific method. The label "science denier" is also unscientific, as it is aimed to discredit a point of view based on labeling the author, rather than content of the work done. My observation is that when politicians become involved in science, the wrong politicians gain and science loses. Scientific results are oblivious to the current day's political correctness. When science funding is dependent on results, it corrupts the science. When the funding, stature and tenure is based on alignment with consensus, it will corrupt some scientists. The corrupted science undermines the credibility of the proper science and as a result we all lose. The gems of climate science breakthroughs may already be among us, but they will not be acted upon, as they are indistinguishable from the corrupted science. So please politicians, act upon critically peer reviewed science, but stay out of the creation of scientific knowledge.
@@mikekramer7737 'The science is settled' usualy refers to the broader topics. No scientist would ever suggest that science is 'done' but it is factualy correct to call it 'settled' at a certain point. Let's say someone would start to believe that germs do not exist, there are people who belive this, scientists wouldn't give you much of a backing because there is no question about it. 'The science is settled'. Same applies to the broad question of ACC. There is no doubt that human activity plays a major role in climate cycles on earth, even the scale at which we do is more or less agreed on. The main questions that new research has to answer is: how can we prevent further change or even revert back to the pre industrial era?
@@jahudini However, this phrase perfectly reflects the arrogant attitude of most politicians and other interest groups to manipulate people in order to achieve their own selfish goals.
Sent this to my son so he could read something other than the BS his teachers tell him is fact. Back in the day, teachers taught people how to think, now they teach them what to think.
@@MrCanadave thanks David, my point was that OP implies they used to teach objective, fact-based critical thinking in schools 'back in the day' whereas in reality they used to brainwash kids with mythical sophistry and Stone age fairy tales and physically abuse thsm for misbehaving. How far we've strayed from God...
@@larryconcepts i disagree with you, the planet keeps its cycles, hot/cold forever (thta is this planets thing), ice age comes after the warming coz of CO2 rising, blocking the Sun out, we are gonna get warm no matter what, then ice age, the ice keeps i habitable for some time until its gone = not human fault, "maybe" we are even making it slower in its heating process.
Climate change has not been made as an objective truth, where no matter what you believe every scientist that preforms experiments gets the same results. At the end of the day when the same people behind WHO are getting involved in Carbon Negative technologies, the Paris Agreement, U.N. and in talks to create a global currency, its pretty obvious these people are interested in creating any entity based on fear that have the words “Global” or “World”. All of these groups are capable of getting around laws and regulations on a basis of a crisis, emergency, pandemic or a global urgency to indirectly implement their plans to make a one world government
"No one seems sure what the experts actually said or who they are or anything". Are you talking about yourself guys? You have no end credits. I don't even know who the voice over is. There is no references, no sources.
Instead of saying experts it just men granules of sand, God sat the earth in its place it gets cold it gets hot in its appointed time no such thing of global warming, you show all the satellites pic you want its a reason why artic is and antarctica is, a trillion dollars for made up stuf, that is how smart man is
@@hugehappygrin Research scientists generally get paid a pittance, they aren't in it for the money, and if they were caught telling lies / fabricating research etc it would greatly damage if not end their career. The motivation is therefore all the other way. Unlike the fossil fuel industry, where the motivation is to lie and spread disinformation. They obviously want to continue making their trillions by selling their product. With any conspiracy theory one should ask these two questions - who stands to benefit and why would they bother?
@@hugehappygrin I would take what this dude says with a grain of salt. He is a Dr because he has a Ph. D in American History, not any kind of climate science. Here is the paper he is talking about. agupubs-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002 IN it it says that, and what Dr Robson forgot to mention, is that when you only look at the data of climate scientists, which was 79 of them, 75 answered yes to it being caused by humans or 95%. Pretty close to 97. The rest of the participants in the survey were Earth Scientists, so things like geology and such would be included. So what he is saying, while technically true, is presented in a dishonest fashion. This expert be lying.
@@russellchandler5858 guess you didn't read the climate gate emails for yourself. www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf Or see the Michael Mann news And court costs. www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/amp/ www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/leading-global-warming-scientist-ordered-to-pay-opponents-legal-costs-in-libel-suit www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#187d4b2227ba Or Phil Jones fraud www.plcao.on.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2904
Question: “Does politician lie?” More than 97% will answer “yes”. Question: “Is Al Gore a politician?” More than 97% will answer “yes”. Question: “Did Al Gore lie?” More than 97% will answer “yes”. ... Rest my case...
Do you mean lying in general or lying about climate change? Even so, you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. Especially when Al Gore gave so much evidence.
Great job, John! Believe it or not, the Doran study was even worse than you reported. 6:27 _"Among 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said 'yes' to the second question, that human activity was a significant factor."_ But there were actually 79 identified most-specialized climate experts, not 77. The two questions were: 1. _“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”_ [Expected answer: “Risen”] 2. _“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”_ [Expected answer: “Yes”] The survey identified 79 respondents as climate experts, not just 77. Two of them were skeptics who answered "remained relatively constant" to the first question, and so they were not asked the second question. 75 of the 79 most specialized specialists, actively publishing climatologists, who answered their survey, actually agreed on those two points of "consensus." That's 94.9%, not 97%. But to calculate his "97%" consensus, Doran first discarded two of the four dissenters, and then calculated 75/77 instead of 75/79. Doran made the same error when calculating his 90% figure, for the level of agreement among all scientists actively publishing climate research. However, I've been unable to find the data which would enable me to calculate the actual percentage. Prof. Doran was hostile and uncooperative, his former graduate student doesn't have his data, and the University of Illinois responded to my FOIA request by saying that the data was not in their possession. So all we can say with certainty is that the consensus was less than 90%, but (based on what Doran revealed about the overall responses to the two questions) it was probably at most about 85%. Of course, that was just one of many problems with Doran's famous "97% consensus" article. Another problem was that they asked questions which didn't distinguish between climate skeptics and climate alarmists. For instance, I'm a skeptic of climate alarmism, but I would have given the "consensus" answers to both questions. They don’t ask whether climate change is harmful, because Dr. Doran know that if they did then their survey wouldn’t show a consensus. Instead, they ask "gimme" questions, designed to elicit the same response from both alarmists and skeptics, so that he could claim a "consensus," for propaganda purposes. Another problem is that the most specialized specialists in a field are exactly the *_worst_* people to poll about the efficacy of the main methods and assumptions of that field. If that's who you ask, you'll _always_ find a consensus, even in fields that are complete hokum. If you poll practicing homeopaths, you'll find a consensus that homeopathy works. If you poll practicing astrologers, you'll find a consensus that astrology works. So finding a consensus among people employed as climate scientists, that their climate models are fit for purpose, and their prognostications aren't nonsense, proves nothing at all. No wonder Dr. Doran published his study in EOS, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal. It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn’t ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) _“Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”_ Of course, the reason Doran didn’t ask “real” questions like those is that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was _NOT_ to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point. BTW, I bought his graduate student’s thesis project report, so if anyone here has any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my SeaLevel dot info web site.
Given that many 'stars' finish up in rehab or somehow manage to blow $40 million in 2 years without knowing where it all went, I too feel disinclined to seek their council on anything.
Boris Goldmund Reagan hadn’t been a movie star for 30 years. So, no. Don’t count him. Reagan was a very successful Governor immediately before becoming our most successful President in 100 years. Massive prosperity for poor people because of his policies.
You have a serial Basket Case for a president. A guy who, if his debts were called in, would be penniless!! He carries $700,000,000 dollars in mortgages for all of those TRUMP properties that you think he owns!!!
Our taxes subsidize Exxon Mobil for 2 billion a year. Why should they have an advantage over other oil companies? Last year, the top 25 companies paid an effective tax rate of zero. The top 1%, for the first time, paid a lower percentage of their income in combined taxes than all other income groups, even the poor.
@@vegetoast1 1815 and the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambura. It is reckoned that 80,000 people died of starvation due to crop failures after that eruption.
Looks like you have no idea of scientific terms. So if the consensus is, that gravity let things fall to the ground it makes scientists gravity activists? Please tell me you actually think that.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.) From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
And that is the echo chamber theory in a nutshell. This video is recommended to people who will agree with it. Boogle does this not for nefarious reasons, but because it means we'll feel good, and come back for more. Remember, Boogle is in it for the advertising revenue. They'll put out whatever sells, and tailor that to what you've liked before.
gerald frost This video is demonetised, as are all non-MSM videos still tolerated by Gooloo's YT policy. If we were in the 16th century & YT existed, it would promote flat earth videos and demonetise Galileo channels. So maybe 97% of algorithms and humans cannot think out of the box, but 3% can. That’s how humanity challenges and survives. YT is irrelevant here, but free speach is primordial.
@@alpinebe4ch597 I'm agreeing with you here! It works both ways, if you believe in a spherical earth, you'll get spherical earth videos. If you don't, you won't. I agreed with the vid; the narrative presented by the media is political, not scientific.
Thank goodness for Al Gore he has saved us all from global warming while cruising the world in his private jet and living in his gigantic home. All the while teaching us all how to cut back on our consumption of fuel and electricity. Thanks Al. You're the greatest.
Lol i remember those days when statistically significant percentage of doctors recommended smoking to calm the nerves and tobacoo processors funded studies in universities and showed that smoking didnt cause cancer
Yeah, just like the ones using loads of cash to make videos like this one to make people question climate change even if it's clear so they hopefully can keep selling their oil and coal which are some of the most profitable businesses on the planet. They don't care about what happens because they have their bunkers ready and paid for by the trillions of dollars made by selling oil and other nasty stuff ruining our planet.
@@kallah4999 Are disputing the facts as they present it? If you would do a little research you would find that their funding is crowd sourced and behind a firewall. They have no idea whom their donors are. Is lt "big oil"? Possibly, but does that change the facts as presented? That man made climate change alarmism is more like a religion than evidence based. We know the climate of this planet changes in cycles and we have real evidence to prove it. None of the dire predictions from alarmists have come true. New York isn't under water and the Maldives haven't disappeared ect, ect. It's a power and money grab that's so obvious it's amazing to me how anyone buys into it.
They always say manmade as if it's all our fault . How about Science fault . I didn't invent plastic or petrol engines etc . Perhaps they will stop sending rockets up . ........
@@edvindenbeste2587 Your statement is flawed! He said rather NOT desired! I would rather have sight than hearing! It doesn't mean I don't desire hearing!
I think you should have reviewed An Inconsistent Truth before doing this video. Scientists who were a part of the IPCC study were interviewed and said the IPCC lied about their findings. During the medieval times the temperature were about 4 degrees higher than now. And they thrived during that time.
Dr. Tim Ball made the same points and was sued for defamation in a SLAPP suit filed by the then-editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver. Ball had been a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg and knew a thing or two about historical climate change, including the medieval warm period and the so-called 'climate optimum.' He could see Weaver, a computer modeller, knew very little about historical climatology and mentioned it in an online article he wrote. Weaver said Ball defamed him, but really Weaver's suit was designed to shut Ball up and keep him out of the climate debate (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Shortly after filing his SLAPP suit, Weaver became the leader of the British Columbia Green Party and enjoyed a pivotal role in BC politics. In contrast, Tim Ball was vilified as a 'climate change denier', a pejorative term akin to 'Holocaust denier'. The story has a happy ending though: after a long legal battle, a judge dismissed Weaver's suit. There's a lot about it online, including this: wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/13/breaking-tim-balls-free-speech-victory-over-andrew-weaver-all-charges-dismissed/
@@julieandrew4323 Yes and I am so happy that a girl who hasn't even reached puberty has all the answers to to worlds problems. How did we ever get this far without her?
Google User I really don’t know, but she single handedly convinced thousands of children from schools up and down the country, (including those who had never even listened or heard her unqualified non science based speeches, or were too young to understand them if they did) to go on strike on the very same day. Now I don’t know about you but If my kids had walked out of school without prior authorisation to strike about say the homeless, or poverty or the NHS, or other things that really matter, they’d have been penalised for it. But that said perhaps there’s some precedent set to give hope to any parent who wants to take their child out of school without permission in order to go on a family holiday or even to celebrate their birthdays at home? Since scientific consensus means they won’t have many left to celebrate soon, will they?
Although we appreciate comments supportive and critical and try to allow considerable leeway for discussion, please be advised that we draw the line at foul language as well as bad manners and libel.
@Ama - giIt's man made, that's the evidence - see the rise in average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution about 150 years ago and CO2 is the major cause.
" The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. ” ― Henry Lewis Mencken, In Defense Of Women
@ hi webb, Those peddling this stuff if you follow the trail most are in some way profiting from it. We hear continually the "Science is Settled". Is it all Furphy and the Earth is starting its next cycle of climate?. The Earths climate has changed many times over hundreds of millions of years, so has that cycle stopped and it is now us doing it?.
No, humans believe they can stop accelerating it to a degree that is unsustainable. That is a pretty huge difference. Unfortunately the misconceptions about climate change are enormous
Well yeah, and read this slowly so you can understand it. Here's how we stop the climate from changing... are you ready, cuz this is deep.. WE STOP DOING THE STUFF THAT WE KNOW IS CHANGING IT (greenhouse gasses). Was that too difficult for you?
@@99gojo99 Thank you! But just to elaborate on this so nobody can say "YoU cAnT sToP cLiMaTe ChAnGe.." It´s not about stopping it (as doubters rightly point out, there has always been change): The point is to stop ACCELERATING to a degree that means ecosystems cannot keep up adapting. So basically what we are trying to stop is catastrophic human influence on climate change.
@@franklindalanosmith2646 Gore did not himself make these predictions but said (in some cases erroneously) that others had, and he never referred to a year-long lack of ice for both poles but instead largely referenced Arctic sea ice in the summer.
@@thecameronator public officials who are putting taxes on meat and demand from ordinary citizens to be eco conscious but at the same time they are hanging around with oil sector representatives and selling weapons to oil rich fundamentalist countries. If you don't let them stay on government budget then "planet will be dooomed!"
@@thecameronator Billions of tax payers dollars are already being given to climate change "consensus view" organisations to study and "prove" it e.g. IPCC and NASA. And you don't think they will not tax the "solutions" also? Meanwhile the elites who drive the consensus view (that it's man made) and believe the sea level will rise are buying hugely expensive houses on beach fronts, and unregulatedly flying private jets all over the world, many to meetings that support man-made global warming. Meanwhile, for example, they are banning plastic drinking straws in some regions. However, I disagree somewhat with the OP comment. As a Christian, while there are some charletan televangelists out there, there are also good Christian leaders and pastors on TV doing a good job.
@@jgdooley2003 Science is the best path to truth that humans have come up with yet. With it we have advanced our society to heights our ancestors could only dream of. And then you some something so fucktarded as "Science has become the new religion and dissenters are the new heretics." God damn you dumb people scare me.
@@phantasmaleye3879 spraying cologne on a pile of dog crap doesn't make it something else... it's still dog crap... my analogy is simple.... playing on emotions is a sad ploy to gain results....facts should determine results... facts are certainly against "climate change", other than normal climate variances
Consensus science has no business being in the realm of scientific study. At one time if the consensus was the world was flat. I don’t care if the consensus is that the world is flat, it’s not.
In the 70's it was global cooling, in the 80's it was global warming, in the 90's it was climate change now we're back to global cooling. I mean if one single prediction came true and there wasn't a ton of money behind the "man made climate change" maybe people would take it seriously
David, I'll explain it to you. Global warming leads to weather extremes. Some places that get cold get colder than normal. Some places that get hot and dry get hotter and dryer than normal. When you average all these changes together the net result is that the climate has gone up by 1.5 degrees and that is significant. That's why the ice is disappearing in the north, why Greenland's ice sheets are melting at an accelerating rate, why the ocean temperatures are rising, why the sea level is rising, etc.
I wonder how many people actually know what Co2 is. Net zero= zero life, being that it is our exhalation! And that's where they want to take it. Here's one for the youth. The climate alarmists in the 80's came up with "there's a hole in the ozone layer" Lol. Climate change covers everything, so they're good now.
I heard it from a friend who might of heard it from a friend who heard from AOC that saw it on CNN that the 97% consensus is spot on. I has to be true!
You’re probably right. That’s straightforward confirmation bias. Most laymen who have an interest in this subject will be affected by it to some degree, including of course those less convinced by the “consensus”.
actually science is done by the consensus of the experiments. it's not scientists voting..... it's the results of experiments. often performed by scientists who want to prove the previous scientists wrong. that's what scientific consensus means. and yes. consensus science is science. that's how it's done. otherwise it would be edicts. and that's religion, not science. remember einstein? the settled science at the time was newtonian physics. einstein made some pretty wild claims. the way he gained credibility was through scientific consensus. when experiment after experiment turned out to result in exactly what einsteins models predicted.....experiments by scientists who wanted to see einstein fail. the same happens with global warming. and with the spheroid earth, and vaccines, and biological gender, and evolution. and a plethora of other things. like carl sagan is attributed with saying(i might be paraphrasing a bit, but the essence is the same): there is only one light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
@@sabin97 Consensus Science is mainstream scienctism-----with agreed agenda. I prefer alternative science where conformity to an agenda is thrown out the door.
My future self, “I Remember when a bunch of manipulated numbers and opinions were used to force the world to reduce CO2 emissions. Then plants began to die. Food production dropped by 40% and millions of people starved. Areas, once lush with plant life, became deserts and then the cold and ice came......”
No. Carbon dioxide levels are higher now than for millions of year, and rising fast - not to mention other greenhouse gases, methane etc. Quoting some actual (factual) science: “The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University. “Earth was a very different place,” he said. “You would hardly recognize the land surface, and my gosh, we don’t want to go there.””
Handiman Jay the globulist kabal are playing god just like chairman mao we must learn from history which explains why they have alway corrupted history to keep power 💁♀️🇬🇧🤔🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@PeppaPig-gn6ch Not sure which side of the argument you're on, Peppa Pig but if you're questioning the science on the basis of a conspiracy to exaggerate climate change, you've got it the wrong way round. The conspiracy is by businesses, and oil and coal particularly who've pumped hundreds of millions of $$$ (documented) into suppressing climate change science and discussion. They're still at it, and probably behind this video too.
@@vecchiojohn Even if climate change is man made , you better believe that they will make it sound like it's a 1000 times bigger problem than it actually is. It's either that, or I must be a genius for being the first to see the opportunity in a pretty penny being made from this.
Watermelon Green on the outside Red on the inside It’s not about controlling Carbon emissions It’s about controlling the means of production The biggest con job in history
No they didn’t . Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (accurately) more than 2000 years ago. Science didn’t exist as a discipline then.
10% dislikes - I wonder what's wrong with those people? How can you dislike a competent discussion that gives you sound insights on statistics and a basis to find a proper standpoint on the issue of climate??? Maybe they don't like the insight that they need to use their brains more... "I TOLD you not to use those things!" (Prof. H. Farnsworth, Futurama)
These climate experts can't even predict a rain correctly, but at the same time they have high precision predictions for the climate change, whilst the only data they have is basicly a table of the temperature measurments.
A table which has had the effectiveness of measurement change over the same amount of time, and the environments of many data collection points also be changed over time. Here in the Phoenix metropolis, we have had whole farms turn in to towns and HOAs within the last 30 years, to say nothing of what has happened over the last 100. As an example, the biggest airport in Arizona is not quite 100 years old, yet that has been used as Phoenix's temperature gauge for decades, to say nothing about how much it has changed by being able to handle international flights and the parking of thousands. I honestly don't know when was the last time construction of one type or another had not been happening at that location, which is always adding new buildings, asphalt, and concrete to the area. These are heat sink materials which greatly affect measurable temperatures as they retain the day's heat and release it at night.
@@Charistoph Adding to your response, the highest ever recorded temp in Phoenix is 122ºF, 30 years ago. But the global warming preachers will tell you the planet has been burning up in recent years. If so, why hasn't this record been broken many times since 1990?
@@e-curb, That's often been my counter, as I've lived at one place or another in the Phoenix metropolis since '86 (save for a couple years in Oregon). I think I was at scout camp near Payson when it hit 122 in Phoenix (lucky for me). The only notable weather difference has been precipitation, which affects our daily temperature more than any level of sunlight or smog. In 2019, we actually had an amazing spring where we didn't hit the century mark until late due to a day of rain every week. It was AMAZING how cool it was during that time (well, for me as an Arizonan native).
What you don't get is that it is colder and wetter because of an increase of carbon in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%. Yup, that's from 300 parts per million to 400 parts per million. Think about that.
@@justlina2769 Plus, there's no optimum level of CO2, every time it's mentioned we're shown a film of some smoggy city, yet CO2 isn't visible. There's also been a difference from 180 parts per million to 4000 parts per million. It's human arrogance to believe that climate should be static simply because we're here at this moment. The earth's climate has never been static. I think a mini ice age would be hilarious in the age of the climate change drone.
Climate change is normal, the ‘climate emergency’ is a UN hoax. Wealth redistribution from well to do countries to ‘emerging nations’ inc China = $$$billions++++++++
I’d like to thank RUclips for putting the “wrong think” disclaimer before the description. Now I will actively be seeking these out as a means of accessing ideas not “approved of” by RUclips policy makers What are you trying to hide that we should be discouraged from seeking information from opposing viewpoints? Do you not believe the veracity of your truth? Is it that weak and flimsy?
i have seen these suggestions that youtube put up some kind of warning of politically incorrect info, but i cant for the life of me figure out where this warning is spose to be ?
And that disclaimer is quoting notoriously unreliable Wikipedia to boot. They only put these disclaimers on videos which disagree with propaganda spewed by MSM and socialits.
I read a great analogy by a scientist referring to co2...."imagine our atmosphere is a sea with a million fish in it....then throw one more fish in every 10 years" That is the sum total of Human contribution to co2...which occurs via many natural chemical and biological process. I am in no way suggesting we do not need to stop polluting our oceans and air....be blatantly do. If you want to construct a more accurate picture of climate change you need to look at things on a geological time frame....not just the past 200 years. If you do that the evidence is very clear...our Earth experiences colossal variables in climate. I am not talking about a 1 or 2 degree temperature increase...i am talking about sea levels rising 400 feet literally overnight...the 2 mile thick ice sheet that covered north America...gone, just as quickly. These are the climate events that you should be worrying about. They are cataclysmic in nature, and would send us back to the stone age overnight.........peace.
@@TheSonicDeviant Thank you my friend...i was hoping someone would connect my comment with Randall....that dude is frickin amazing....respect and peace to ya.
@@TheSonicDeviant I tell ya, whoever you are...that is the nicest youtube reply i ever had...i would like to return the sentiment and say i hope life is being kind to you...God bless ya..and your pic is cool to....D
@@TheSonicDeviant I just might do that my friend. Life is a funny thing...i was born and raised in London (Camden Town) but now near ipswich. A couple of years back i spent a few weeks camping up the west coast of Scotland...starting in Glasgow, then up to Fort William, Isle of Skye and so on. Absolutely beautiful country...left a big impression on me and the people were great...despite my cockney accent. Enjoy your food n beer Puli Ukko.....D
Doggerland disappeared like that. It has happened and without human activity to blame. We're talking neolithic era. They are constantly bringing stuff up out of the sea in that area. Animal bones, human bones, artifacts. One fishing boat brings up so much that they hired an archaeologist to work on the boat.
You and I live in a city, You have $1,000,000 and I have $0; statistical studies will show that the inhabitants have 500K each, that how stupid statistics can be.
It is a fact that you can PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, completely contrary conclusions from the same set of data. I have seen it in action where real money was at stake and the parties involved would not even consider that they may be wrong.
"Science is a process of constant challenges to show a conclusion. When you have no conclusion, show your science.. When you can't do either, pretend your conclusion was already science and those who doubt you, doubt science..." theoretical scientist, Albert Eisenstein.
Wow. 10% of the viewers of this vid didn’t like it? They must be alarmists. Alarmists claim to believe in science. But when science disagrees with their faith, they immediately throw the offending science out. Way to be scientific!!!! Great job!!
You have drawn a conclusion from the statistic you used without any evidence to support it, but your own prejudices. And then you make cracks about others' "faith". This video clip did not refute the science, just the percentage of 97%.
@@isabelrobinson5986 This video did refute the science, by casting doubt on it. e.g. He acknowledged that greenhouse gases cause "some warming", but what does that mean? How much warming is "safe", or not? He belittles the significance of the greenhouse effect and the consequences that we might face. The 97% results are completely accurate as claimed by the scientists that did the research, according to the questions asked in the various surveys. Politicians have unfortunately "spun" the results of these studies and said things that weren't quite right. Nonetheless other people's misquotes don't make the actual studies (and associated claims / results) invalid.
"Do humans have an effect on climate?" Me: Well I just made a camp fire for my hot dogs Also me: Wasn't there like 2 ice ages in the past? Seems pretty dramatic for there being no humans at the time.
Brian, we are in the middle of a period in which for more than 4 million years there has been an ice age about every 100,000 years lasting between 80,000 and 90,000 years. So, for at least 4 million years we've had about 40 ice ages. During that time, 80-90% of the time we have been in an ice age. We are overdue for the next one and that's the saddest thing I can think to write. The world has been warming primarily because we are coming out of the last ice age and the little ice age before we go into the next one. Think of it: everything will change, especially geography. The Great Lakes were created by the last ice age. Will they be there after the next one? Probably not. New York City, Chicago, the Great Plains, the Chesapeake Bay, etc. won't be part of earth's geography. And 50-80% of humans will die from starvation. Maybe 100 million people will come out of the next one. It's horrific. Global warming is plain old bullshit being used to manipulate people. I hate it.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon, but humans can attribute to the changes in the atmosphere. Humans don't cause climate change but we do contribute to it. The question is how much we are speeding up the warming. The guy above doesn't know what he's talking about, listen to the experts
@@miketomlin6040 The whole Green New Deal is centered around a rise in global temperature caused by man. My point is that the data to blame man is false.
@@michaelvangundy226 It might be, but at the moment there are a few million experts in the field who look at the data and link the recent rapid warming to fossil fuel consumption since 1700-1800. The Green Scientists, who drew the politicians attention to this in the early 70's were widely ignored then and still are being. So little will change regardless to the data being clear or not.
@@miketomlin6040 The rise in Co2 causing a temperature rise was debunked years ago. What was found was quite the opposite. The rising temperature caused the Co2 to rise. It is causing a bloom in desert areas and an increase in Oxygen due to the larger amount of plant life. The models you refer to had some "corrections " made to give the desired results.
@@richarddobreny6664 And the natural gas industry made out like a bandit getting Congress to more tightly regulate coal, yet you're not skewering Dick Cheney now, are you? And most experts in the field have been saying for 2 decades that solar was very likely to work as long as panel efficiency continued to improve at a healthy pace. There's good money to be made in solar panels for good reason. With the best panels available today, only 30% efficient, you'd only need to cover an area as large as Spain to power the entire world at current consumption rates. With graphene-based prototypes (no rare earth metals required) already hitting 45% efficiency, solar has huge potential. And with saltwater-carbon batteries catching up to Lithium-Ion in terms of storage density and discharge capability, the problem of intermittent generation when the Sun isn't shining is vastly cancelled out. Also, the toxic manufacturing and disposal of Lith-ion components goes away. I'm happy to embrace sustainable biofuels, especially for aviation and naval use where taking the extra weight with you the entire trip just isn't practical, but I'm afraid the trends in cost and technology are such that, not only is solar becoming safer and more stable, but it's becoming cheaper and will easily be cheaper than natural gas as a structural energy source by 2040.
@@richarddobreny6664 What about the global fossil fuel industry? They received $296 billion in government subsidies in 2017 alone and if you add in the health costs to society and the environment those costs balloon to $5.2 trillion.
@Patrick Proctor regurgitating alarmist propaganda is definitely not a good look. The simple fact that you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough sunlight to power the grid is more than a huge problem. Coal, natural gas and nuclear are without question the safest, cleanest, most reliable, most available and most cost effective way to power the planet. I mean try powering London solely on solar. You would have chaos because the sun doesn’t shine there consistently enough to power the grid non stop. That is a fact. What you said isn’t something you came up with. It’s something a bunch of really smart well funded people with gains to be made from the solar industry sham put out for you to lap up like mothers milk. Just like high speed rail in CA. Where did all that money go? No high speed rail even close to being on the horizon but lots of politicians bank accounts got real fat. smfh
Have you also noticed how people with rich political connections always have a “non profit” something or other to donate to each other and dodge paying taxes.
Right, and it's the fossil fuel companies with the money to pay for the disinformation you believe. Follow the money AND the scientific evidence. Do that and you'll be forced to change your position.
@@thertis580 If a person denies all evidence they should not be allowed to speak on the subject. Also if you don't believe the evidence put forth by both the oil companies and other independent scientists then you don't believe in science.
@@John-gq7vt It was also Exxonmobil who paid scientists to look at these things and then they dismiss the evidence for manmade climate change they got out of that and kept on trying to spread misinformation and hide the truth from the public.
Basically I get called a "climate denier" even though I don't dispute that climate changes or that humans affect it. I just don't buy the idea that it's going to cause the apocalypse. The conversation around climate is disturbingly dogmatic and almost religious in nature.
So is any subject where what we're taught/brainwashed by the mainstream media differs from the truth. Try having a rational discussion on the safety of vaccines, the carnivore diet or transgender rights and see how far you get with anyone who believes the official story/lie.
Climate change IS a religion. It has millions of followers who have no knowledge of whether it is real or not. Their belief is entirely based on faith, ie; it is a religion. It even has a prophet in shape of a young woman from Sweden!
The seasonal changes is the climate. Climate does change over time with or without human actvity. How did the Ice Ages come to be? How did they go away? Solar activity and volcanic activity are known to affect weather patterns. The fact is that temperature and storm patterns will continuosly change. Humans will have to adapt or die.
There are many solar cycles driven by the movements of the Sun, Earth and other Planets in our Solar System--Cycles may last for many years. Nothing man can do will change the cycles of the Sun!
_For every major scientific discovery, only one agreed. The rest disagreed_ For every phenomenon, there are infinitely many false explanations, and exactly one correct explanation. Many, many of these possible explanations will be espoused by one person or another. If you disagree with the conclusion of every other scientist, the likelihood that you are wrong is so near absolute that you're as surely wrong as anything else is sure in science. If you do it _without_ being the most brilliant scientist in the group, your odds are damn near zero.
Well billions maybe an embellishment but his major company was a direct benefactor of cap and trade. I didn't believe it either but he's a grifter. A great one no doubt with sincerity in light-years, as well as hypocrisy and greed. Grifter champion, enough to make Bernie and Ponzi green with envy. Don't believe, or do, but you don't owe him defense, as he will never give you a cent, green common or otherwise. But he will use you up like fuel through his jet. Gore science is hinged upon policy. That science is political science. Pass protocols, use as cudgel, create consensus. How do you not know this at this point? Plenty of material on Al Gore's life, his mentor, his supporters, his father etc. Plenty of material from other Nobel scientists with differing conclusions than that of alarm. Not a single group of scientists arguing if the sun is made of cheese. Which dare I say will probably be the next thing. Al Gore is a hypocrite who profits immensely from being so, fine. But the data on sea levels has been done and proved minimal rise in some cases and coastline expansion in others and inconclusive as to why, satellite global temperature data by John Christy who I think was co recipient of Gore Nobel prize, has proved minimal and cause insufficiently conclusive as per IPCC own conclusion summary reports. Either I've been had twice or you've been had. The difference is, no one on your side is "being the change" their just clamoring for everyone else to be, which is where I draw it up now at the end of the day. So, by all means, give up all your "carbonized" associated lifestyle and go live in a yert on one of Al Gores estates and worship Gaia. Or don't. Either way is fine by me.
When I was a kid in the 60s there were only 6000 polar bears left. Sadly, after decades of destructive CO2 emmissions, only 30,000 have survived
Hobbit Homes - When I was a kid in the 60s, we had snow every winter, and days every winter when temperatures dropped below -20F (-30C). This held true into the late 70s. That’s when satellites Started monitoring global atmospheric temperatures, although it would be another 20 years before Dr Roy Spencer & Dr John Christy, working with a team of NASA scientists, were able to produce the best scientific record of mean global temperature which is available to date.
At first, the record showed warming, and earned Dr Spencer NASA’s highest award for achievement. That was in the late 90s. Fast forward two decades, and the Leftist Lying Lunatics behind this global climate hoax are vilifying Dr Spencer because the satellites now prove beyond any doubt that Climate Models (used to create surface temperature records) are False.
This falsification of the CO2/Climate theory is at least the third time in history when otherwise competent scientists have erred in regards to CO2 warming. Tyndall, Arrhenius, and Revelle were all refuted by their peers, and now, the father of modern Global Warming fear-mongering (James Hansen, former director of NASA’s GISS at Columbia U in NYC) has been refuted, along with the Nobel-prize-winning UN IPCC & Al Gore.
How are the Climate Models refuted? They all predicted a significantly greater warming, driven by higher levels of atmospheric CO2. According to the most scientific record of atmospheric CO2 levels we can now assert there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean global temperature on time scales stretching from one day to 90 years.
Paleoclimate records enable us to assert no correlation over time scales from thousands to billions of years.
Sadly, after decades of climate fear-mongering, the only thing we have to show for the Trillion dollars spent are false climate models, prostituted climate scientists, greedy political activists who think they earned the right to become Masters of the Universe, ignorant generations of young folks who have never experienced any global warming at all during their lifetimes, and a Leftist global news journalism intent on preserving the narrative about Climate Change, because their Masters have promised to reward them for helping promote the fear-mongering in regards to fossil fuel consumption.
@@danweaver4304 In the eighties it was Global Cooling! It's always something with these fascists!
@@danweaver4304 Agree totally. Very well said.
Hobbit Holmes
Flat earth awaits you.
Those damn calculators...
they used to say when i was younger "one day they will tax you for the air you breath". how ironic
The priest on the radio said that and many other things that have since come true.
Taxman by the Beatles says it all
@@hellothere98765 You're misleading the argument. Considering that water is limited in where it is being sourced from. While the air itself is abundant everywhere like sunlight during the day.
@@hellothere98765 i've never bought water i use a filter. what is evian an anagram of? if i bought water i would consider the tax part of the cost of the supply chain of shipping water too me for it's purity. i would have to ignore the tests that have shown contamination in bottled water and the fact that it is in a plastic bottle full of BPA. i'm not being taxed for the oxygen i breath, just the co2 i breath out, which is the part of air plants breath to lock the carbon and emit oxygen. in britain they did once try to tax sunlight. it was known as daylight robbery
No they used to say "one day they will tax you for clean air" shm didn't watch the Lorax did you
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
― Mark Twain
You can tell who the fooled are. They are the ones that double and triple down and get more fierce as they are cornered.
We all get fooled, what we do after defines whether we are a fool or not.
Yes, take religion now..... :)
Jason Dashney - There’s an entire philosophy of management based on testing employees by pitting them against one another and observing which one resorts to emotional attack first.
So true
I am 97 percent sure those promoting disaster , are making millions of dollars based on those accusations.
I'll take that bet.
Find me one millionaire climate scientist.
Just one.
I'll wait.
@@buurzaiThe premise was not "climate scientists" but "those promoting disaster".
E.g. Al Gore, Elon Musk et al.
Those climate catastrophists have become rather wealthy marketing predictions and would-be climate solutions, wouldn't you agree?
@@buurzai "The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change." -Heritage Foundation 2018
@@suprememasteroftheuniverse So is your blind confidence in something so thoroughly contradicted by reality.
Ironically, it's corporations making tens of billions off of environmental destruction. Why would fossil fuel companies spend so much time and money covering up climate change if it is not an issue?
"The more society drifts from the truth, the more they will hate those that speak it." --- George Orwell
Yes, are there's an awful lot of hate being directed towards those that are trying to protect our environment and planet.
@@russellchandler5858 protecting it from what? Can you be specific.
@@jayscybermind3284 From excessive human pollution and likely rapid environmental change.
@@russellchandler5858 Can you show me any a temp rise that has caused rapid environmental changes? Can you even find a temp rise? I can show you a diabolical plan to come up with a common currency to apply a carbon tax on us all. Listen, all governments LIE. They are pushing for this 1 world gov and preposterous lies are part of it. They tell you all this global weather garbage and you just blindly agree. We have 0 evidence. What we have is evidence of a global takeover to enslave the masses. Do some research.
@@jayscybermind3284 exactly 👍
I'm reminded of the story about Einstein's response to the book published by a hundred scientists trying to disprove his theory of general relativity. As the story goes, his response was "If I was wrong, one (scientist) would have been enough!"
Disagreeing doesn't mean you don't want to clean up our environment.
A very good point
Exactly!
Try telling that to the religion of climate activist who are willing to sacrifice their children both unborn and current
@@Kil23Joy I think if these activists really believed humans are the main cause of climate change then I would expect them not to have children thereby creating more humans to add to the climate change
Valerie Dale
I was just on “the humanist report”
A channel that has almost 300,000 subs
Talking about how the climate change cause the Aussie fires
Pretty much a Bernie bro channel, not saying I believe all the comments but in a few comment chains, some of them have hundreds, all pretty much saying they are not having kids because of climate change
I have an assumption that most of them are not having kids cause women go dry at the sight of them but out of all those comments I wouldn’t doubt at least some of them were true
I also heard vasectomies are going up, but that could also be mgtow and feminism based decisions but articles are out there about dudes getting fixed over climate change too
Honestly, anyone with any experience in the real world would realize immediately that never has 97% of any group ever been in consensus.
I disagee.....
consensus is irrelevant anyway
Lol that's probably the simplest way to explain it 🤣 😅 😂
However, even without going to scientific jargon, etc, apart from the fact that a 97% of consensus over most matters is suspicious, there is another relatively simple matter: follow the money. I am willing to believe that the oil conglomerate is evil and funding whatever supports their cause. However, why am I to trust that the green conglomerate is not evil? Why would they be employing other methods? I mean, it's not like green energy and green this and green that, is also a huge industry as is the industry of recyclable materials (the latter being also very volatile since what is traded has no inherent value other than what can be "negotiated").
@@degrelleholt6314 the fact that you people don't know what scientific consensus is, shows that you shouldn't have an opinion on scientific fields, because it is highly likely you don't even know what basic terms in said field mean. Scientific consensus refers to scientific studies, and it's extremly common for studies to agree with each other, since studies aren't about opinions but facts and facts are often binary.
Not true. Most dictators win their elections by 97%
'In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' - George Orwell.
@@hellothere98765 Lol. Revolutionary ..... not. I don't see ANY of these left wing climate activists in India or China demonstrating over their amount of 'gases'. Many climate activists are nothing more than Socialist puppets, thinking they are helping. :) I prefer to deal in facts, not emotions. Have a nice day. :)
J & B ... for the sole purpose of re volt, never mind it attempts to destroy a leading nation in preservation.
@@briancarr34 and I see you pointing fingers and blaming it on other people, you think Orwell would agree of this
@@jamesholkky2706 If the people I've 'pointed' too are politically motivated and/or blindly agree as a part of the brain washed masses in regards to man made climate change ..... then yes, he would agree. I suggest you read '1984' to give my statement more context. Have a nice day. :)
@@briancarr34 more people should read thet book
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Groucho Marx
You are not looking at the evidence. The problem with people tend to have opinions without looking at the evidence especially in North America.
@@pouyavakil6645 you are missing my point, I take it sarcasm is lost in your mother tongue
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Ernest Benn
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
@@pouyavakil6645 no, not "specially in North America". You're lumping in Canada and Mexico in there when really you mean the United States.
"A lie will travel half way around the world before the truth puts its boots on".
Agreed
Yea like this video. The video being the lie and truth will be actual science.
@@The_Primary_Axiom yes
@@lwinsoe3870 If karma goes around for real. Then it must be taking the scenic route, on foot, no wheels. -Canibus
@@The_Primary_Axiom maybe yes
"I'm rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned."- good quote
Yeah had to note it down too
@Jack Johnson You can question the answers all you want, and in fact that is what the scientific community is all about. But what you will realise is that global warming has been tested hundreds of times and every single time they reach the same answer. It is real.
Like the left
@Jack Johnson @Quack... uhh, the video clearly points out that there is concensus. Not sure what you all are smoking (but I"m sure it's natural, not man made). The video points out that what is lacking is an honest discourse on what everyone is agreeing too. 97% of all priest believe Jesus was a real man and was raised from the dead. Priest are religious experts. Now who in their right mind would question that?
For the record... quote was at ~14:10 and it was by Physicist Richard Feynman
There are three kinds of lies. There are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.
-Mark Twain
Twain forgot politicians speaking😇✌😉
Not Mark Twain, although he has made the phrase popular. Most likely it was Sir Charles Dilke. But that is not proven either.
@@proudamerican7662 Those were the 'damn lies'.
10/10 out of context quotes from a time long past.
@@brucewilliamsstudio4932 They are all 3!
Notice how the 'solution' is always more of your wealth redistributed into their pockets.
Mountain Metal - Oh, that’s harsh, MM. Surely the Climate Liars plan to let some crumbs from their swindling fall onto the floor, where poor people can fight over them to survive?
@Gr Ra If you're anti-corporate, you're anti-business, and anti-free-market.
Probably communist.
@Gr Ra You didn't say 'certain corporations'.
Gr Ra - If you’re going to criticize others for not thinking, then you might want to try it yourself. Top executives at Big Oil companies are in bed with bureaucrats in Big Gov’t. They’ve invented an ingenious method of screwing the “ignorant masses”: impose carbon taxes based on imaginary carbon “footprints”. Create a fake “market” based on the fake footprints, which gives the appearance of being a free market. This is done to appeal to Conservatives, and create what I refer to as “corporate welfare for the rich”!
How does it work? Simple. The Biggest corporations (the ones with huge, multi-billions in quarterly profits) are Big Oil. Top executives in Big Oil quietly invest in Solar & Wind power startups, and start shutting down facilities which are aimed at developing fossil fuels. This reduces their carbon footprint and “earns” them carbon credits. Who pays for these credits? We do, including every small business seeking to grow, except those who are funding the non-competitive Wind & Solar companies. See, the small business seeking to expand must necessarily increase its carbon footprint! Brilliant: it’s a Communist wet dream designed to stifle all free market entrepreneurs and eliminate incentives at the root of all real free markets, and replace them with a Gov’t-controlled pseudo-market! Supplement such fake markets with fake money, and theoretically, you can enslave the entire world’s population for the enrichment of the “Masters of the Universe” (Leftists running the One World Gov’t, and leading the New World Order). Perhaps you think you’re one of the leaders of the NWO? Think again.
Gr Ra - Democrat Gov’t bureaucrats, Leftist news media, Marxist professors, and crazy political activists are all fighting against the truth, on which all science is founded.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned”. Perfect 👌🏻.
👏👏👏👏👍
So you must hate the truth
Edvin Storlind Not at all, I crave the truth. Unfortunately the truth has been buried by political correctness and those who dare speak it will be crucified, hence the phrase “answers that cannot be questioned”.
@@edvindenbeste2587 and you sir must be blind to the facts. Maybe you are like Uncle Joe Biden: "I believe in the truth, not facts".
@@brucewilliamsstudio4932 No, but if you have questions that can't be answered you can't find the truth. And the truth cannot be questioned since it is the truth thus the truth is an answer that can't be questioned. So if you prefer having an unanswerable question you do not prefer the truth.
When critical thought is stifled, political thought becomes rational regardless of absurdity... -Me
Good one Jeff.
I can see the day coming when it will be against the law to notice that the law is against the law... Me
It's not what people know that is important, it's what they think
Critical thought isn’t always about what you know. It’s digesting what you hear and learn, making sense of it and bettering yourself. Thinking for yourself has become antithetical to belonging to a particular political party or in this case an idea...
Good line. Well suited
Love that quotable quote!
If Obama really believed in climate change and rising sea levels, he wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion next to the beach.
Just like back in 2012 I have been offering the people who claim the world will end in 12 years $10K for their house and I'll let them live in it until the 13th year. At that point they have to move out. I'll double the amount for water front on the ocean. Just like with 2012 I have yet to get a taker.
Not true.
I would too.I believe in climate change and believe we can do something sensible about it.
Before the water makes my mansion become a house boat.
@@davidsvarrer8942 like what exactly? how about you sell your car, computer and drier and actually make a difference. short of nuclear power, dams ( which for some reason everyone has a problem with) and only having one child, nothing will change.
oh good luck telling people they cant have kids
@@davidsvarrer8942 Why do you believe... belief isn't fact, belief is faith, Nazi's believed in Hitler, abused children were told to believe in Priests who abused them... come on, stop believing, if still unsure research more!
k
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
Problem is, that who is who. ;-)
Exactly what Catherine McKenna, Canada's ex Minister of Environment said in a bar - say it loud and often enough in the House of Commons and people will believe it! She is a classic manipulator of the truth.
Jacob Siwers Climate Barbie in Canada said that first....
@@petrhariprasadhajic9570 try common sense. Theres a vid on YT , made by a US TV Company, in 1978, predicting a new ICE AGE within 5 yrs. Just because the USA had a unusually hard winter, with snow falling further south than for--?? a few decades. People are still waiting for it----AND the one predicted in 1993. Of course, things got even more confusing, when global warming threatened, a couple of yrs later. NOW--we are warned about CLIMATE CHANGE. ere--HASN'T THE WORLD DONE THAT SINCE DAY ONE????????????????????????????
Thanks, most people aren't honest enough to call themselves liars. That takes guts, congratulations!
97% of my cells tried to convince me to walk of a cliff yesterday.
I listened to the 3%.
I'm still alive today.
it will not matter if you had
Dude. That’s not clever or funny. It just makes no sense. How long did it take you to make that up?
@@seriousseriosity4055 Actually I think it IS clever, and here's why.
ruclips.net/video/ewJ6TI8ccAw/видео.html
S. S. - How can you be sure? Perhaps we have died and been replaced by advanced cyborgs!
Lmao dumbest thing I've ever heard
Don't forget that it is only western CO2 which does the damage.
Co2 is good, without it = no plants no plants = no oxygen 😇😂
@@franksmith9420 Pls excuse but how can you verify Your CO2 stats? Seriously. Since humans have not been around for millions of years, there is some question about the CO2 cycles? Pls advise??
@@franksmith9420 the ocean releases almost all co2. From all the bacteria look it up its a fact.
The “plants” algae is not suppose to take it up it creates it. As the more co2 the more plants and oxygen there willbe. Allsow the earth would still be in the ice age if it wasn’t for some warming dont you agree?
Take the time do some research your self and dont take what others say as a fact.
@@franksmith9420 but i agree too some points your making
Leet me say like this.
You look at 100 papers. 10 of those say its a warming. 5 of those says its dangerous. You could argue that 50% of the pappers is saying its dangerous.
It's always something. I'm 63 & when I was 10, my teacher said in 50 years the world would be so overpopulated that we'd each only have a square foot to live in. Scared me half to death. He had us stand on a floor tile of that size, pretty much shoulder to shoulder. Now let's scare the kids about the climate. Golly.
I'm 67 and remember the same things. When I worked at Apple, one of the videos we produced talked about population density - and it turns out that if you allowed for the density pattern in Singapore, you could fit the entire planet's population inside of Texas. People who live in the big cities need to take a drive across Arizona...
Im so sorry you had to be exposed to such a traumatic bs. I have little faith in the government and the educational systems
The overpopulation point still holds true.
John Ames Only in a small mind that has been ruthlessly brainwashed
Yep! and we were going to be totally out of oil by the 1990's. Then there was the "starvation monologue". The future sure looks grim!
"Do you think" and "Do you agree", these questions alone should raise red flags, because science is not about personal feelings and thoughts, is a bout hard facts and experience.
And the facts say climate change is real
True of scence however it's important to recognize that which claims to be scence and is not.
Science may not be about personal feelings, yet those feeling will find whatever truth they seek! All they know is that they can't prove/disprove climate change! How do we know if the change in temperature is due to the cycle of the earth? We say we are so smart on this subject yet how long have we actually been tracking the earth's weather and temperature??? Infantile by the scientists measurement of the earth's age....
@@ytbabbler true, climate changes, but 'man made' is still up for debate.....if you disagree, you don't know what science is.
@@ytbabbler Global warming is yesterdays news and is complete rubbish. Climate change, ahhh.....well yes, that`s happening naturally and has been for billions of years, instead of just coming up with stupid comments why don`t you try and use, common sense, a little research and watch the above clip from beginning to end, it`s all in there you may learn something. "Climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous." There are no facts to back up that claim, they are ignorant presumptions, predictions and speculations which so far haven`t come true. These climate religionists have been making these silly claims for decades and not one of their claims and predictions have come true. They predicted that by the year 2000 the polar icecaps would be melted, polar bears would be extinct and that tens of millions of climate change "refugees" would be flooding the west, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Netherlands would be uninhabitable and most of the Himalayan glaciers would have melted and that the Arctic ice sheet would be gone, children born after this time would never see snow. All predicted by "climate change" scientists and propagated by irresponsible governments and misinformed news networks all over the world and of course none of it happened, thankfully there are more polar bears now than there were 20 years ago. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age believe it or not so obviously it`s very slowly getting warmer. Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago so when these climate evangelists say the earth is warming they are correct but not in the way they think. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today.
And now they rely on grooming and frightening children to get their dangerous agenda across!
Anyone who disagrees with this agenda is called a DENIER, put in the same bracket as a holocaust denier which just shows how despicable these people are getting.
The scary thing is that you can't even talk about this with people
You totally can. Just most people are pretty uninformed or use "Scientific papers" from oil companies to make their point which can make it pretty frustrating...
@@DerVagabundli I'm being serious when I say I get raise this subject around people - people who have never read a scientific people in their lives and travel allover the wold on planes every year become silent at best and hostile at worst - they have been programmed
As for the science being on 'your' side - I respectfully disagree and think anyone who believes this garbage has no idea of what they are talking about
As for oil companies, they are owned and controlled by the very same people pushing the climate change nonsense
@@yingyang1008 You'd be pretty fooled to think oil companies are arguing for evidence of climate change.
I have read a lot about this subject, I'd say even more about the climate sceptic side. So far there has been no evidence to suggest the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong.
@@DerVagabundli What makes you think the vast majority of climate scientists agree on anything?
Did you speak to them? Or are you just repeating information that was pumped into your brain?
@@yingyang1008 I did actually speak to some of them, as they are my professors who worked on the Leibnitz Rechenzentrum and it's climate models...
How about you?
I've also read the infamous Cook 2013 study and the "follow up studies" said to debunk it, which they don't.
When I was in college (back in the dark ages) one of my favorite courses was using statistics, which taught us how to select and manipulate data to prove or disprove a position. The class was divided into two, and each week we were given a set of data; 1/2 took one position, the other half took an opposing position. Very interesting to see how using the same data we could present opposite interpretations.
That's the problem with statistics. Look at only the part that proves what you want.Nothing to do with actual facts
@@lesliemudford468 Exactly, facts really don't matter. Statistics are just a tool manipulated to validate an agenda. Which we can see is very effective.
I also learned that in political science. Weird🤨
@@luvmusl2163 And appropriate! LOL
That’s honestly a fantastic class that should be taught to every student (add that to the long list of useful things to learn that aren’t taught but useless things are).
Consensus is not a scientific method but it is used in politics and religion.
Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main tools of the scientific method, not consensus.
@@janimelender2674 Why do you feel the need to exclude and belittle. Do you feel superior? Or are you a pathetic individual that is threatened by any opposing opinion. Why does that threaten you? Are you really that insecure?
Excuse me? Of course consensus / statistics are important to come to conclusions (and not only in science)
@@nicofonce it actually isn't. No idea in science is ever put to a vote. Ideas are introduced and vetted in peer review and empirical validation which happens in the arena of research papers submitted to scientific journals. I strongly recommend you watch at least the first three minutes of this video for clarification:
ruclips.net/video/MTJQPyTVtNA/видео.html
@@nicofonce there was also a geocentric consensus that the Earth was the centre of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Consensus is a religious method not Scientific.
Science must be reproducible and observable. A former ODA member of mine was part of the security for the convention that the 97% fraud came from. Everyone had to sign in before going in. After the propaganda convention started most of the visitors left with some staying for free food and booze. The sign-in list was what Gore used to hold up during is speeches to claim the 200+ scientists agreed with him.
Thank you so much for this rational and even-handed discussion. Down here at street level, it is next to impossible to have a discussion with prople who have never studied climate, who have ready quotes from the "experts," and who have no idea what a political football they are running with, having accepted everything the news has gravely reported as indisputable "settled science."
It is very encouraging to hear actual results and analysis of scientific papers, and polls of actual meteorologists and climatologists. Really, who cares what a chemist or biologist "agrees" with, in a field that they have zero expertise in? "Scientist" is too broad a term. Do we consult entomologists for their ideas on quantum theory? Do we rely on medical general practitioners for advice that only a trained specialist is qualified to offer?
That politics has coopted a contested scientific endeavor into an absolutism for policymaking, to the tune of trillions of economy crippling dollars, is extremely troubling. That there can be no disagreement is about as unscientific as it gets.
Anyway, thanks for the much-needed breath of fresh air. Being treated like you're crazy is just so tiresome.
I imagine we're not far from "Algorithms determined your comment demonstrates logic. Further displays of logic may result in termination of your account."
@@adammillwardart7831 Social credit scores the western way.
According to this they broke it down to one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory
I had no idea that proper science comes down a vote.. thought it all relied on actual proof
It does. This video is mostly bollocks.
@Jackoff Richardson You want evidence that science is based on evidence?
@Jackoff Richardson Do be honest, or at least try, would me bothering to look up any evidence reeeeeeeally change your mind? Not that I can't of course, I do that on a daily basis, but if I took a few minutes to look up any respectable climate science paper on arxiv, would you reeeeeeeeally read it past the title? Or the abstract?
@Jackoff Richardson Kids these days. You want data debunking what is referred in this video? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding if you'll really read it or not.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Now it's a study referencing many studies. In essence, there's no better way to extract a number such as 97% if this type of work isn't done.
If you do read it fully, then we can have a conversation, as it literally goes against the entirety of the premise of this video.
@Jackoff RichardsonNow that I think about it, I don't know if I can post links in youtube's comments. So here the title of it : Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Put that in google. It's tremendously easy to find. When you have read that, maybe we'll be able to have a conversation?
The phrase "the science is done" is unscientific, as it is aimed at stifling any questioning of results or methodology, which is a corner stone of the scientific method. The label "science denier" is also unscientific, as it is aimed to discredit a point of view based on labeling the author, rather than content of the work done. My observation is that when politicians become involved in science, the wrong politicians gain and science loses. Scientific results are oblivious to the current day's political correctness. When science funding is dependent on results, it corrupts the science. When the funding, stature and tenure is based on alignment with consensus, it will corrupt some scientists. The corrupted science undermines the credibility of the proper science and as a result we all lose. The gems of climate science breakthroughs may already be among us, but they will not be acted upon, as they are indistinguishable from the corrupted science. So please politicians, act upon critically peer reviewed science, but stay out of the creation of scientific knowledge.
you are wrong as this video is also.
If science was ever done, we would no longer progress.
@@na.meless Yes while this comment might not be wrong the video is wrong
@@mikekramer7737 'The science is settled' usualy refers to the broader topics. No scientist would ever suggest that science is 'done' but it is factualy correct to call it 'settled' at a certain point.
Let's say someone would start to believe that germs do not exist, there are people who belive this, scientists wouldn't give you much of a backing because there is no question about it. 'The science is settled'.
Same applies to the broad question of ACC. There is no doubt that human activity plays a major role in climate cycles on earth, even the scale at which we do is more or less agreed on. The main questions that new research has to answer is: how can we prevent further change or even revert back to the pre industrial era?
“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”
- Winston S. Churchill
He wasn't really a smart guy to begin with. Being a President during war time don't make u a genius.
@@jahudini However, this phrase perfectly reflects the arrogant attitude of most politicians and other interest groups to manipulate people in order to achieve their own selfish goals.
My favorite quote regarding statistics is, "Statistics are like a bikini -- often what is hidden is more important than what is revealed."
@@jahudini "President Churchill" Ha!
@@jahudini he wasn't a president either,we don't have them in the uk. Might want to get your facts in order before insulting him.
Sent this to my son so he could read something other than the BS his teachers tell him is fact. Back in the day, teachers taught people how to think, now they teach them what to think.
oh so true.
And your credentials superior to those of your son's teachers are...?
@@perllyngrenn2100 Father
Didn't they used to teach religion in school?
@@MrCanadave thanks David, my point was that OP implies they used to teach objective, fact-based critical thinking in schools 'back in the day' whereas in reality they used to brainwash kids with mythical sophistry and Stone age fairy tales and physically abuse thsm for misbehaving. How far we've strayed from God...
Without Co2 the planet would DIE !
Without you it wouldn't
With out water we would die, with too much we would drown.
@@captainamerica3493 Define what's too much CO2 then.? When the level was several times higher than it is today, grass was growing in Sahara...
@@larryconcepts i disagree with you, the planet keeps its cycles, hot/cold forever (thta is this planets thing), ice age comes after the warming coz of CO2 rising, blocking the Sun out, we are gonna get warm no matter what, then ice age, the ice keeps i habitable for some time until its gone = not human fault, "maybe" we are even making it slower in its heating process.
Yes, and with too much of it, the planet would die. That experiment has already been run in our own solar system, it's called Venus.
I'm shocked with undeniable "truth" is still on the internet. Worry not! Joe's people will get right on this!
Climate change has not been made as an objective truth, where no matter what you believe every scientist that preforms experiments gets the same results. At the end of the day when the same people behind WHO are getting involved in Carbon Negative technologies, the Paris Agreement, U.N. and in talks to create a global currency, its pretty obvious these people are interested in creating any entity based on fear that have the words “Global” or “World”. All of these groups are capable of getting around laws and regulations on a basis of a crisis, emergency, pandemic or a global urgency to indirectly implement their plans to make a one world government
"No one seems sure what the experts actually said or who they are or anything". Are you talking about yourself guys? You have no end credits. I don't even know who the voice over is. There is no references, no sources.
Instead of saying experts it just men granules of sand, God sat the earth in its place it gets cold it gets hot in its appointed time no such thing of global warming, you show all the satellites pic you want its a reason why artic is and antarctica is, a trillion dollars for made up stuf, that is how smart man is
Of course "Joe's" people will get right on it, the only thing you need to know about is the corporation BLACKROCK© and that will give you the reason for why Joe's people will get right on it. You people are all the same and completely predictable while you don't know the slightest bit about how and why things go on in our government. You just hear the catch phrases white privilege, oppression, lgbtq, racism, and truly believe that all of America's problems boil down to those topics, and the politicians actually tell you that they are going to "fix" those things if only you vote for them. In the meanwhile they continue to spew those terms to get you emotional all while stuffing their pockets and get richer and richer and after four years go by and nothing changes they pick up those catch phrases again and trick you out of your vote! I challenge you to do a true investigation into the corporation BLACKROCK and look at Biden's cabinet members and what role they play in that company and why they might want you to believe the whole "climate change" hysteria that they're pushing on you and anyone that will believe it. And then read TIME MAGAZINES latest article on the "Secret Cabal" that saved the 2020 election, and try to talk yourself out of feeling tricked because that's exactly what you are.
As a conservative, I agree the climate is shifting. It's not man-made, and it is natural. Humanity has just accelerated the process up exponentially.
Notice how there are no consequences for these scammers...
Reminds me of WW2 traitors. After the war they got high paying govt jobs and all of a sudden didn't remember anything...
@Mr Brightside and if you speak the truth, they try to destroy and pummel you...
Yeah, youtube should take this video down
Freedom of speech
@@MrElionor Yeah, it's a shame our rights is violating the rights of our planet😔
It’s called lying.
Yes, this video is a series of lies and deliberate, intentional deception.
@@russellchandler5858 Which a paid "expert" would never do, right?
@@hugehappygrin Research scientists generally get paid a pittance, they aren't in it for the money, and if they were caught telling lies / fabricating research etc it would greatly damage if not end their career. The motivation is therefore all the other way.
Unlike the fossil fuel industry, where the motivation is to lie and spread disinformation. They obviously want to continue making their trillions by selling their product.
With any conspiracy theory one should ask these two questions - who stands to benefit and why would they bother?
@@hugehappygrin I would take what this dude says with a grain of salt. He is a Dr because he has a Ph. D in American History, not any kind of climate science. Here is the paper he is talking about. agupubs-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002 IN it it says that, and what Dr Robson forgot to mention, is that when you only look at the data of climate scientists, which was 79 of them, 75 answered yes to it being caused by humans or 95%. Pretty close to 97. The rest of the participants in the survey were Earth Scientists, so things like geology and such would be included. So what he is saying, while technically true, is presented in a dishonest fashion. This expert be lying.
@@russellchandler5858 guess you didn't read the climate gate emails for yourself. www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
Or see the Michael Mann news
And court costs.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/amp/
www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm
www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/leading-global-warming-scientist-ordered-to-pay-opponents-legal-costs-in-libel-suit
www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#187d4b2227ba
Or Phil Jones fraud
www.plcao.on.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2904
Question: “Does politician lie?”
More than 97% will answer “yes”.
Question: “Is Al Gore a politician?”
More than 97% will answer “yes”.
Question: “Did Al Gore lie?”
More than 97% will answer “yes”.
... Rest my case...
Do you mean lying in general or lying about climate change? Even so, you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. Especially when Al Gore gave so much evidence.
Okay so barbarically roasting the scientist doesn't change the evidence or prove your IQ
You haven't made a case. What's your case?
I do hope you are not a practicing lawyer. I fear for your clients.
If Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor...
Great job, John!
Believe it or not, the Doran study was even worse than you reported.
6:27 _"Among 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said 'yes' to the second question, that human activity was a significant factor."_
But there were actually 79 identified most-specialized climate experts, not 77.
The two questions were:
1. _“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”_
[Expected answer: “Risen”]
2. _“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”_
[Expected answer: “Yes”]
The survey identified 79 respondents as climate experts, not just 77. Two of them were skeptics who answered "remained relatively constant" to the first question, and so they were not asked the second question.
75 of the 79 most specialized specialists, actively publishing climatologists, who answered their survey, actually agreed on those two points of "consensus." That's 94.9%, not 97%. But to calculate his "97%" consensus, Doran first discarded two of the four dissenters, and then calculated 75/77 instead of 75/79.
Doran made the same error when calculating his 90% figure, for the level of agreement among all scientists actively publishing climate research. However, I've been unable to find the data which would enable me to calculate the actual percentage. Prof. Doran was hostile and uncooperative, his former graduate student doesn't have his data, and the University of Illinois responded to my FOIA request by saying that the data was not in their possession.
So all we can say with certainty is that the consensus was less than 90%, but (based on what Doran revealed about the overall responses to the two questions) it was probably at most about 85%.
Of course, that was just one of many problems with Doran's famous "97% consensus" article.
Another problem was that they asked questions which didn't distinguish between climate skeptics and climate alarmists. For instance, I'm a skeptic of climate alarmism, but I would have given the "consensus" answers to both questions. They don’t ask whether climate change is harmful, because Dr. Doran know that if they did then their survey wouldn’t show a consensus. Instead, they ask "gimme" questions, designed to elicit the same response from both alarmists and skeptics, so that he could claim a "consensus," for propaganda purposes.
Another problem is that the most specialized specialists in a field are exactly the *_worst_* people to poll about the efficacy of the main methods and assumptions of that field. If that's who you ask, you'll _always_ find a consensus, even in fields that are complete hokum. If you poll practicing homeopaths, you'll find a consensus that homeopathy works. If you poll practicing astrologers, you'll find a consensus that astrology works. So finding a consensus among people employed as climate scientists, that their climate models are fit for purpose, and their prognostications aren't nonsense, proves nothing at all.
No wonder Dr. Doran published his study in EOS, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal.
It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn’t ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) _“Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”_
Of course, the reason Doran didn’t ask “real” questions like those is that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was _NOT_ to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point.
BTW, I bought his graduate student’s thesis project report, so if anyone here has any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my SeaLevel dot info web site.
When film stars start banging on about any political subject,you just know the powers that be are desperate.
Given that many 'stars' finish up in rehab or somehow manage to blow $40 million in 2 years without knowing where it all went, I too feel disinclined to seek their council on anything.
That, and indoctrination and promotion of ignorant children
You mean, like President Ronald Reagan?
And Arnold Schwarzenegger, or just the non GOP stars?
Boris Goldmund Reagan hadn’t been a movie star for 30 years. So, no. Don’t count him. Reagan was a very successful Governor immediately before becoming our most successful President in 100 years. Massive prosperity for poor people because of his policies.
97 is an interesting number. Whenever someone claims 97 percent of something, there’s probably a 97 percent chance they’re selling you something.
In marketing and sales, 97 is a number that sticks in your mind
With a 3% margin of error.
They are either selling you or trying to tax you.
What could they be selling us?
@@phantasmaleye3879 A pack of lies that we have to give them total control or our children's children's children will suffer.
Anything that a politician claims is a top issue, should be dismissed as nothing but a political vote buying measure and/or a way to create a tax.
Like tRump's wall.
You have a serial Basket Case for a president. A guy who, if his debts were called in, would be penniless!! He carries $700,000,000 dollars in mortgages for all of those TRUMP properties that you think he owns!!!
@@dlr6926 Luddite!
You mean like Democracy!
Our taxes subsidize Exxon Mobil for 2 billion a year. Why should they have an advantage over other oil companies? Last year, the top 25 companies paid an effective tax rate of zero. The top 1%, for the first time, paid a lower percentage of their income in combined taxes than all other income groups, even the poor.
It's not about the truth. It's about control. It's not about saving the Earth, never was.
I've always wondered why vulcanic eruptions haven't caused climate change.
Maybe it's because vulcanoes are not man made and can't be taxed.
They do, but they output far less CO2 than humans do
Look up the year with no summer, that will tell you about what a volcano can do for climate change. Interesting
@@vegetoast1 1815 and the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambura. It is reckoned that 80,000 people died of starvation due to crop failures after that eruption.
@@foggs totally factually wrong.
Everything causes climate change. So What!
Matter of time when the ministry of climate truth will remove this video.
carrnil yes!, they will tell us what to think!
carrnil so share, share, share away, while we still can!! 🤙
No soup for you!
When Scientists start throwing around the word consensus, they essentially exchange their "Scientist" creds for "Activist."
Very well said. Absolutely!!
@@Xen0Phanes it's easier to fool people than to convince them they are being fooled - Mark Twain.
@@samesame4388 Wise words from a great writer.
Looks like you have no idea of scientific terms.
So if the consensus is, that gravity let things fall to the ground it makes scientists gravity activists? Please tell me you actually think that.
J4ckC4ver we can all see gravity.. yet to see a climate emergency
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
According to the likes this video has a 97% consensus
Congrats!
And that is the echo chamber theory in a nutshell. This video is recommended to people who will agree with it. Boogle does this not for nefarious reasons, but because it means we'll feel good, and come back for more. Remember, Boogle is in it for the advertising revenue. They'll put out whatever sells, and tailor that to what you've liked before.
gerald frost This video is demonetised, as are all non-MSM videos still tolerated by Gooloo's YT policy. If we were in the 16th century & YT existed, it would promote flat earth videos and demonetise Galileo channels.
So maybe 97% of algorithms and humans cannot think out of the box, but 3% can. That’s how humanity challenges and survives. YT is irrelevant here, but free speach is primordial.
@@alpinebe4ch597 hopefully the current "consensus" will be viewed the same as Galileos by future generations... Sooner rather than later
.075 maybe hey
@@alpinebe4ch597 I'm agreeing with you here! It works both ways, if you believe in a spherical earth, you'll get spherical earth videos. If you don't, you won't.
I agreed with the vid; the narrative presented by the media is political, not scientific.
Thank goodness for Al Gore he has saved us all from global warming while cruising the world in his private jet and living in his gigantic home. All the while teaching us all how to cut back on our consumption of fuel and electricity. Thanks Al. You're the greatest.
And increasing his wealth from $1m in 1999 to $220m in 2020 through carbon trading schemes.
Libsrscum
Lol i remember those days when statistically significant percentage of doctors recommended smoking to calm the nerves and tobacoo processors funded studies in universities and showed that smoking didnt cause cancer
and Harvard doctors were paid to say fat is bad, when it is really sugar is worse !
Yeah, just like the ones using loads of cash to make videos like this one to make people question climate change even if it's clear so they hopefully can keep selling their oil and coal which are some of the most profitable businesses on the planet. They don't care about what happens because they have their bunkers ready and paid for by the trillions of dollars made by selling oil and other nasty stuff ruining our planet.
@Jack Johnson I know, and they're what's wrong with humanity and will eventually lead to our extinction.
@@kallah4999 Are disputing the facts as they present it? If you would do a little research you would find that their funding is crowd sourced and behind a firewall. They have no idea whom their donors are. Is lt "big oil"?
Possibly, but does that change the facts as presented? That man made climate change alarmism is more like a religion than evidence based.
We know the climate of this planet changes in cycles and we have real evidence to prove it.
None of the dire predictions from alarmists have come true. New York isn't under water and the Maldives haven't disappeared ect, ect.
It's a power and money grab that's so obvious it's amazing to me how anyone buys into it.
Even if smoking was unhealthy a bottle of healthy radium water every day will offset it.
Don’t be fooled.! It’s all about money andControle overPeople, you’ll see.🙄🤐
They always say manmade as if it's all our fault . How about Science fault . I didn't invent plastic or petrol engines etc . Perhaps they will stop sending rockets up . ........
@@stevenkaye7096 Just because you didn't invent plastic or petrol engines does not mean they are not manmade.
@@iQuack Scientists made them not every man
@@stevenkaye7096 Are scientists not mankind?
Agree!!
I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned. Very good!
The flaw is that then you do not prefer the truth.
Edvin Storlind so you’re a fascist then?
@@alaskancub7124 In what way would i be a fascist?
@@edvindenbeste2587 Your statement is flawed! He said rather NOT desired! I would rather have sight than hearing! It doesn't mean I don't desire hearing!
@@Diponty Yeah but saying i would rather have sight than hearing means you prefer having sight over hearing.
I think you should have reviewed An Inconsistent Truth before doing this video. Scientists who were a part of the IPCC study were interviewed and said the IPCC lied about their findings. During the medieval times the temperature were about 4 degrees higher than now. And they thrived during that time.
Dr. Tim Ball made the same points and was sued for defamation in a SLAPP suit filed by the then-editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver. Ball had been a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg and knew a thing or two about historical climate change, including the medieval warm period and the so-called 'climate optimum.' He could see Weaver, a computer modeller, knew very little about historical climatology and mentioned it in an online article he wrote. Weaver said Ball defamed him, but really Weaver's suit was designed to shut Ball up and keep him out of the climate debate (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Shortly after filing his SLAPP suit, Weaver became the leader of the British Columbia Green Party and enjoyed a pivotal role in BC politics. In contrast, Tim Ball was vilified as a 'climate change denier', a pejorative term akin to 'Holocaust denier'. The story has a happy ending though: after a long legal battle, a judge dismissed Weaver's suit. There's a lot about it online, including this: wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/13/breaking-tim-balls-free-speech-victory-over-andrew-weaver-all-charges-dismissed/
God, I cannot hear this "iN mEdIeVaL tImEs...." Nonsense anymore...
It was warmer IN NORTHERN EUROPE. the global average was significantly lower.
Jamie don’t be ignorant
I can't even get an accurate weather report for the weekend and I'm supposed to believe they can tell me what the weather will be 100 years from now?
Dont ask it here. Do a study. You are dwelling with nono's
Google User What do you mean? Greta has already provided us with an accurate 12 year forecast remember😂😂😂
@@julieandrew4323 Yes and I am so happy that a girl who hasn't even reached puberty has all the answers to to worlds problems. How did we ever get this far without her?
Google User I really don’t know, but she single handedly convinced thousands of children from schools up and down the country, (including those who had never even listened or heard her unqualified non science based speeches, or were too young to understand them if they did) to go on strike on the very same day. Now I don’t know about you but If my kids had walked out of school without prior authorisation to strike about say the homeless, or poverty or the NHS, or other things that really matter, they’d have been penalised for it. But that said perhaps there’s some precedent set to give hope to any parent who wants to take their child out of school without permission in order to go on a family holiday or even to celebrate their birthdays at home? Since scientific consensus means they won’t have many left to celebrate soon, will they?
@@julieandrew4323 Boy can you imagine how pissed off those kids are gonna be at the liberals 12 years from now when they find out it was all a lie ?
Keep up the good work CDN.
Although we appreciate comments supportive and critical and try to allow considerable leeway for discussion, please be advised that we draw the line at foul language as well as bad manners and libel.
You don't like G.D. Well suddenly a high tone. Lets see if 97% agree
I prefer the term "Environmental change" over climate change.
Toemato tamato!
@Ama - giIt's man made, that's the evidence - see the rise in average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution about 150 years ago and CO2 is the major cause.
Thank you. I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than than answeres that can't be questioned.
Great presentation. Well done.
Thank you kindly!
" The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. ”
― Henry Lewis Mencken, In Defense Of Women
Yes but unfortunately most never seem to realize that
Brilliant
@@thejoker9201 öo[
like the supposed invasion of brown people coming to usa with their tanks and ships and guns?
"Figures don't lie but liars figure" is a quote also attributed to Mark Twain
However, humans imagine they can STOP the climate from changing
@ hi webb, Those peddling this stuff if you follow the trail most are in some way profiting from it. We hear continually the "Science is Settled". Is it all Furphy and the Earth is starting its next cycle of climate?. The Earths climate has changed many times over hundreds of millions of years, so has that cycle stopped and it is now us doing it?.
Of course. We’re the latest Gods.
No, humans believe they can stop accelerating it to a degree that is unsustainable.
That is a pretty huge difference. Unfortunately the misconceptions about climate change are enormous
Well yeah, and read this slowly so you can understand it. Here's how we stop the climate from changing... are you ready, cuz this is deep.. WE STOP DOING THE STUFF THAT WE KNOW IS CHANGING IT (greenhouse gasses). Was that too difficult for you?
@@99gojo99 Thank you!
But just to elaborate on this so nobody can say "YoU cAnT sToP cLiMaTe ChAnGe.."
It´s not about stopping it (as doubters rightly point out, there has always been change):
The point is to stop ACCELERATING to a degree that means ecosystems cannot keep up adapting.
So basically what we are trying to stop is catastrophic human influence on climate change.
Al Gore
Quote
" the polar caps will be gone by 2014"
Still waiting .
@@franklindalanosmith2646
Gore did not himself make these predictions but said (in some cases erroneously) that others had, and he never referred to a year-long lack of ice for both poles but instead largely referenced Arctic sea ice in the summer.
Ahhhh, the north pole is?
Those people are like televangelists: they tell you that you are doomed but if you give them money the can "save" you.
Science has become the new religion and dissenters are the new heretics.
Who's asking for money?
@@thecameronator public officials who are putting taxes on meat and demand from ordinary citizens to be eco conscious but at the same time they are hanging around with oil sector representatives and selling weapons to oil rich fundamentalist countries. If you don't let them stay on government budget then "planet will be dooomed!"
@@thecameronator Billions of tax payers dollars are already being given to climate change "consensus view" organisations to study and "prove" it e.g. IPCC and NASA. And you don't think they will not tax the "solutions" also? Meanwhile the elites who drive the consensus view (that it's man made) and believe the sea level will rise are buying hugely expensive houses on beach fronts, and unregulatedly flying private jets all over the world, many to meetings that support man-made global warming. Meanwhile, for example, they are banning plastic drinking straws in some regions. However, I disagree somewhat with the OP comment. As a Christian, while there are some charletan televangelists out there, there are also good Christian leaders and pastors on TV doing a good job.
@@jgdooley2003 Science is the best path to truth that humans have come up with yet. With it we have advanced our society to heights our ancestors could only dream of. And then you some something so fucktarded as "Science has become the new religion and dissenters are the new heretics." God damn you dumb people scare me.
With no proof we now understand why their lead spokesperson is a 16 year old emotional child😂😂😂
i don't think 16yr olds viewed this video.... it's shame :(
She is everything but emotional!
@@jacobvandermeulen1970 ..."how dare you!"
Whose 'lead spokesperson'? You should really stop using the ad hominem fallacy. Who presents it doesn't change in any way whether it's correct or not.
@@phantasmaleye3879 spraying cologne on a pile of dog crap doesn't make it something else... it's still dog crap... my analogy is simple.... playing on emotions is a sad ploy to gain results....facts should determine results... facts are certainly against "climate change", other than normal climate variances
Consensus science has no business being in the realm of scientific study. At one time if the consensus was the world was flat. I don’t care if the consensus is that the world is flat, it’s not.
Are trying to say the world isn't flat???!!! :o
I have a question who else is here watching this after Texas head to biggest snowstorm in the state's history!
In the 70's it was global cooling, in the 80's it was global warming, in the 90's it was climate change now we're back to global cooling. I mean if one single prediction came true and there wasn't a ton of money behind the "man made climate change" maybe people would take it seriously
97% of "climate alarmists" deny that is happening. Brrrrrrr
David, I'll explain it to you. Global warming leads to weather extremes. Some places that get cold get colder than normal. Some places that get hot and dry get hotter and dryer than normal. When you average all these changes together the net result is that the climate has gone up by 1.5 degrees and that is significant. That's why the ice is disappearing in the north, why Greenland's ice sheets are melting at an accelerating rate, why the ocean temperatures are rising, why the sea level is rising, etc.
I wonder how many people actually know what Co2 is. Net zero= zero life, being that it is our exhalation! And that's where they want to take it.
Here's one for the youth. The climate alarmists in the 80's came up with "there's a hole in the ozone layer" Lol. Climate change covers everything, so they're good now.
@@springjewel4900 you don't what net zero means you don't net means please be quiet the adults are talking
I heard it from a friend who might of heard it from a friend who heard from AOC that saw it on CNN that the 97% consensus is spot on. I has to be true!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂🤣😂🤣😄 exactly
Repeat I lie enough times people start to believe it. My ex wife is good example of that
I heard on Fox TV that there is 100% consensus that climate change is bollocks.
I’m 97% certain that ‘climate change’ believers will not watch this video
You’re probably right. That’s straightforward confirmation bias. Most laymen who have an interest in this subject will be affected by it to some degree, including of course those less convinced by the “consensus”.
I hope people on both sides of the debate will investigate the arguments and evidences presented by the other side.
Then you are right since there is no "Believers"
Gave it a damn good try. At some point, you have to ask, where is his tin foil hat?
There are no "believiers" because it's a very well proven fact. You can just know the science behind it or not.
"Consensus Science" isnt science. -Micheal Chriton
Exactly! Anytime someone says the "science is settled", they dont understand science
Doctors trying to tell me about the coronavirus consensus but I'm not drinking their kool-aid
neither is Main street science
actually science is done by the consensus of the experiments.
it's not scientists voting.....
it's the results of experiments.
often performed by scientists who want to prove the previous scientists wrong.
that's what scientific consensus means.
and yes. consensus science is science. that's how it's done.
otherwise it would be edicts. and that's religion, not science.
remember einstein?
the settled science at the time was newtonian physics.
einstein made some pretty wild claims.
the way he gained credibility was through scientific consensus. when experiment after experiment turned out to result in exactly what einsteins models predicted.....experiments by scientists who wanted to see einstein fail.
the same happens with global warming. and with the spheroid earth, and vaccines, and biological gender, and evolution. and a plethora of other things.
like carl sagan is attributed with saying(i might be paraphrasing a bit, but the essence is the same):
there is only one light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
@@sabin97 Consensus Science is mainstream scienctism-----with agreed agenda. I prefer alternative science where conformity to an agenda is thrown out the door.
Thank you. Keep up the good reporting.
My future self, “I Remember when a bunch of manipulated numbers and opinions were used to force the world to reduce CO2 emissions. Then plants began to die. Food production dropped by 40% and millions of people starved. Areas, once lush with plant life, became deserts and then the cold and ice came......”
No. Carbon dioxide levels are higher now than for millions of year, and rising fast - not to mention other greenhouse gases, methane etc. Quoting some actual (factual) science:
“The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University. “Earth was a very different place,” he said. “You would hardly recognize the land surface, and my gosh, we don’t want to go there.””
Handiman Jay the globulist kabal are playing god just like chairman mao we must learn from history which explains why they have alway corrupted history to keep power 💁♀️🇬🇧🤔🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@PeppaPig-gn6ch Not sure which side of the argument you're on, Peppa Pig but if you're questioning the science on the basis of a conspiracy to exaggerate climate change, you've got it the wrong way round. The conspiracy is by businesses, and oil and coal particularly who've pumped hundreds of millions of $$$ (documented) into suppressing climate change science and discussion. They're still at it, and probably behind this video too.
@@vecchiojohn Even if climate change is man made , you better believe that they will make it sound like it's a 1000 times bigger problem than it actually is.
It's either that, or I must be a genius for being the first to see the opportunity in a pretty penny being made from this.
Reducing emissions doesn't remove CO2, it just stops adding more, or slows down the pace of adding it.
Watermelon
Green on the outside
Red on the inside
It’s not about controlling
Carbon emissions
It’s about controlling the means of production
The biggest con job in history
Fur8er Eight it’s about lifekill
Remember the hole in the Ozone and we're all going to die.
It ranks in the top 100, but not the biggest.
It is actually number two. The greatest hoax ever is Darwinian Evolution.
@@joeiiiful Atheism ranks up high there too
97% of scientist once believed the Earth was flat. Science is not based on consensus.
@@rushelm8101 LMFAO 😂💀😂 😂
Wait!.... it’s not??
I cant verify that we are spinning at 1000 mph from east to west.
You mean it's not flat?
No they didn’t . Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (accurately) more than 2000 years ago. Science didn’t exist as a discipline then.
10% dislikes - I wonder what's wrong with those people? How can you dislike a competent discussion that gives you sound insights on statistics and a basis to find a proper standpoint on the issue of climate??? Maybe they don't like the insight that they need to use their brains more... "I TOLD you not to use those things!" (Prof. H. Farnsworth, Futurama)
@King of my own Coin Collection Totally agree.
Thank you for posting this. I, like most people, never knew that these studies were so misleading or downright fraudulent.
I love it! Once again: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Thanks for such an excellent, and clear, presentation.
General rule of thumb.
If stats are presented in a percentage instead of actual figures.
Be skeptical!!!
These climate experts can't even predict a rain correctly, but at the same time they have high precision predictions for the climate change, whilst the only data they have is basicly a table of the temperature measurments.
A table which has had the effectiveness of measurement change over the same amount of time, and the environments of many data collection points also be changed over time. Here in the Phoenix metropolis, we have had whole farms turn in to towns and HOAs within the last 30 years, to say nothing of what has happened over the last 100.
As an example, the biggest airport in Arizona is not quite 100 years old, yet that has been used as Phoenix's temperature gauge for decades, to say nothing about how much it has changed by being able to handle international flights and the parking of thousands. I honestly don't know when was the last time construction of one type or another had not been happening at that location, which is always adding new buildings, asphalt, and concrete to the area. These are heat sink materials which greatly affect measurable temperatures as they retain the day's heat and release it at night.
@@Charistoph Adding to your response, the highest ever recorded temp in Phoenix is 122ºF, 30 years ago. But the global warming preachers will tell you the planet has been burning up in recent years. If so, why hasn't this record been broken many times since 1990?
@@e-curb, That's often been my counter, as I've lived at one place or another in the Phoenix metropolis since '86 (save for a couple years in Oregon). I think I was at scout camp near Payson when it hit 122 in Phoenix (lucky for me).
The only notable weather difference has been precipitation, which affects our daily temperature more than any level of sunlight or smog. In 2019, we actually had an amazing spring where we didn't hit the century mark until late due to a day of rain every week. It was AMAZING how cool it was during that time (well, for me as an Arizonan native).
Ask the farmers up in Canada & the Dakotas how global warming is working out for them...
You'll get a 97% consensus; colder & wetter / GSM.
Michael Murphy so true, I live in Western Canada
What you don't get is that it is colder and wetter because of an increase of carbon in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%. Yup, that's from 300 parts per million to 400 parts per million.
Think about that.
@@justlina2769 Plus, there's no optimum level of CO2, every time it's mentioned we're shown a film of some smoggy city, yet CO2 isn't visible. There's also been a difference from 180 parts per million to 4000 parts per million.
It's human arrogance to believe that climate should be static simply because we're here at this moment. The earth's climate has never been static. I think a mini ice age would be hilarious in the age of the climate change drone.
Mini ice age is on the way!
Climate change is normal, the ‘climate emergency’ is a UN hoax. Wealth redistribution from well to do countries to ‘emerging nations’ inc China = $$$billions++++++++
I’d like to thank RUclips for putting the “wrong think” disclaimer before the description.
Now I will actively be seeking these out as a means of accessing ideas not “approved of” by RUclips policy makers
What are you trying to hide that we should be discouraged from seeking information from opposing viewpoints?
Do you not believe the veracity of your truth? Is it that weak and flimsy?
What wrong think disclaimer are you talking about? Sounds like you've found a shortcut through bs, so care to share?
i have seen these suggestions that youtube put up some kind of warning of politically incorrect info,
but i cant for the life of me figure out where this warning is spose to be ?
And that disclaimer is quoting notoriously unreliable Wikipedia to boot. They only put these disclaimers on videos which disagree with propaganda spewed by MSM and socialits.
I read a great analogy by a scientist referring to co2...."imagine our atmosphere is a sea with a million fish in it....then throw one more fish in every 10 years" That is the sum total of Human contribution to co2...which occurs via many natural chemical and biological process. I am in no way suggesting we do not need to stop polluting our oceans and air....be blatantly do. If you want to construct a more accurate picture of climate change you need to look at things on a geological time frame....not just the past 200 years. If you do that the evidence is very clear...our Earth experiences colossal variables in climate. I am not talking about a 1 or 2 degree temperature increase...i am talking about sea levels rising 400 feet literally overnight...the 2 mile thick ice sheet that covered north America...gone, just as quickly. These are the climate events that you should be worrying about. They are cataclysmic in nature, and would send us back to the stone age overnight.........peace.
@@TheSonicDeviant Thank you my friend...i was hoping someone would connect my comment with Randall....that dude is frickin amazing....respect and peace to ya.
@@TheSonicDeviant I tell ya, whoever you are...that is the nicest youtube reply i ever had...i would like to return the sentiment and say i hope life is being kind to you...God bless ya..and your pic is cool to....D
@@TheSonicDeviant I just might do that my friend. Life is a funny thing...i was born and raised in London (Camden Town) but now near ipswich. A couple of years back i spent a few weeks camping up the west coast of Scotland...starting in Glasgow, then up to Fort William, Isle of Skye and so on. Absolutely beautiful country...left a big impression on me and the people were great...despite my cockney accent. Enjoy your food n beer Puli Ukko.....D
@Steve Hurley Thank you Steve, and well put yourself my friend...peace brother.
Doggerland disappeared like that. It has happened and without human activity to blame. We're talking neolithic era. They are constantly bringing stuff up out of the sea in that area. Animal bones, human bones, artifacts. One fishing boat brings up so much that they hired an archaeologist to work on the boat.
John Robinson == are a Gem of wisdom and courage !!!!!!
“There are 3 types of Lies
LIES
DAMN Lies
And
Statistics”
-Samuel Clemons
You and I live in a city, You have $1,000,000 and I have $0; statistical studies will show that the inhabitants have 500K each, that how stupid statistics can be.
It is a fact that you can PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, completely contrary conclusions from the same set of data. I have seen it in action where real money was at stake and the parties involved would not even consider that they may be wrong.
And anything a democrat politician says.
Neil Bristol Actually, that was Benjamin Disraeli, twice UK Prime Minister in the late 1900's (1868 and 1874-1880).
Then this video would be a lie too... and same with school, and everything
Best video about the topic I've yet come to see. ❤️
"Science is a process of constant challenges to show a conclusion. When you have no conclusion, show your science.. When you can't do either, pretend your conclusion was already science and those who doubt you, doubt science..." theoretical scientist, Albert Eisenstein.
Well we found out where they got the idea from
"the claim that 97% of scientists" That's incorrect. Now they are saying 99% of scientists.
Great quote, " I'd rather I had, questions, I can't answer. Than have answers I can't question." Very clever!
That's from Richard Feynman. ALSO: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." Cicero. (if you lie about one thing, you lie about all things)
You can't write.
So we are going to spend trillions and put millions of people out of work to find it's not humans
Yep.
They don’t care, they just want our money
Wow. 10% of the viewers of this vid didn’t like it?
They must be alarmists.
Alarmists claim to believe in science.
But when science disagrees with their faith, they immediately throw the offending science out.
Way to be scientific!!!! Great job!!
But the science doesn't disagree - you have been hoodwinked by a oil-lobby sponsored propaganda video mate.
You have drawn a conclusion from the statistic you used without any evidence to support it, but your own prejudices. And then you make cracks about others' "faith". This video clip did not refute the science, just the percentage of 97%.
@@isabelrobinson5986 This video did refute the science, by casting doubt on it. e.g. He acknowledged that greenhouse gases cause "some warming", but what does that mean? How much warming is "safe", or not? He belittles the significance of the greenhouse effect and the consequences that we might face. The 97% results are completely accurate as claimed by the scientists that did the research, according to the questions asked in the various surveys. Politicians have unfortunately "spun" the results of these studies and said things that weren't quite right. Nonetheless other people's misquotes don't make the actual studies (and associated claims / results) invalid.
@@russellchandler5858 re: you have been hoodwinked by a oil-lobby sponsored propaganda video mate...........
only in your liberal mind
@@russellchandler5858 re: you have been hoodwinked by a oil-lobby sponsored propaganda video mate...........
only in your liberal mind
The importance of this video is reflected in the over 8000 comments. Great work, guys.
Thanks. As always please share, subscribe to and support our work.
"Do humans have an effect on climate?"
Me: Well I just made a camp fire for my hot dogs
Also me: Wasn't there like 2 ice ages in the past? Seems pretty dramatic for there being no humans at the time.
Brian, we are in the middle of a period in which for more than 4 million years there has been an ice age about every 100,000 years lasting between 80,000 and 90,000 years. So, for at least 4 million years we've had about 40 ice ages. During that time, 80-90% of the time we have been in an ice age. We are overdue for the next one and that's the saddest thing I can think to write. The world has been warming primarily because we are coming out of the last ice age and the little ice age before we go into the next one. Think of it: everything will change, especially geography. The Great Lakes were created by the last ice age. Will they be there after the next one? Probably not. New York City, Chicago, the Great Plains, the Chesapeake Bay, etc. won't be part of earth's geography. And 50-80% of humans will die from starvation. Maybe 100 million people will come out of the next one. It's horrific. Global warming is plain old bullshit being used to manipulate people. I hate it.
^^^^^^^what he said
Climate change is a natural phenomenon, but humans can attribute to the changes in the atmosphere. Humans don't cause climate change but we do contribute to it. The question is how much we are speeding up the warming. The guy above doesn't know what he's talking about, listen to the experts
10,000 years ago my house was covered in 3 miles of ice! I don't think that cow farts and car exhaust melted it.
@Nigel Dobson
My point is that the Earth's orbit changes and that causes cycles in it's temperature.
@@michaelvangundy226 I suspect climate experts are well aware of cycles, they study them 35-40hrs a week, for decades!!
@@miketomlin6040
The whole Green New Deal is centered around a rise in global temperature caused by man. My point is that the data to blame man is false.
@@michaelvangundy226 It might be, but at the moment there are a few million experts in the field who look at the data and link the recent rapid warming to fossil fuel consumption since 1700-1800.
The Green Scientists, who drew the politicians attention to this in the early 70's were widely ignored then and still are being. So little will change regardless to the data being clear or not.
@@miketomlin6040
The rise in Co2 causing a temperature rise was debunked years ago. What was found was quite the opposite. The rising temperature caused the Co2 to rise. It is causing a bloom in desert areas and an increase in Oxygen due to the larger amount of plant life. The models you refer to had some "corrections " made to give the desired results.
And when skeptics have been defunded, it becomes more difficult to tell the truth.
So, as a businessman or philanthropist, you want to throw your money at something most experts in the field are certain is a worthless endeavor?
Patrick Proctor if there’s money in it, with huge profit potential. Nancy Pelosi’ s husband made out like a bandit on solar panels.
@@richarddobreny6664 And the natural gas industry made out like a bandit getting Congress to more tightly regulate coal, yet you're not skewering Dick Cheney now, are you? And most experts in the field have been saying for 2 decades that solar was very likely to work as long as panel efficiency continued to improve at a healthy pace.
There's good money to be made in solar panels for good reason. With the best panels available today, only 30% efficient, you'd only need to cover an area as large as Spain to power the entire world at current consumption rates. With graphene-based prototypes (no rare earth metals required) already hitting 45% efficiency, solar has huge potential. And with saltwater-carbon batteries catching up to Lithium-Ion in terms of storage density and discharge capability, the problem of intermittent generation when the Sun isn't shining is vastly cancelled out. Also, the toxic manufacturing and disposal of Lith-ion components goes away.
I'm happy to embrace sustainable biofuels, especially for aviation and naval use where taking the extra weight with you the entire trip just isn't practical, but I'm afraid the trends in cost and technology are such that, not only is solar becoming safer and more stable, but it's becoming cheaper and will easily be cheaper than natural gas as a structural energy source by 2040.
@@richarddobreny6664 What about the global fossil fuel industry? They received $296 billion in government subsidies in 2017 alone and if you add in the health costs to society and the environment those costs balloon to $5.2 trillion.
@Patrick Proctor regurgitating alarmist propaganda is definitely not a good look. The simple fact that you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough sunlight to power the grid is more than a huge problem. Coal, natural gas and nuclear are without question the safest, cleanest, most reliable, most available and most cost effective way to power the planet. I mean try powering London solely on solar. You would have chaos because the sun doesn’t shine there consistently enough to power the grid non stop. That is a fact. What you said isn’t something you came up with. It’s something a bunch of really smart well funded people with gains to be made from the solar industry sham put out for you to lap up like mothers milk. Just like high speed rail in CA. Where did all that money go? No high speed rail even close to being on the horizon but lots of politicians bank accounts got real fat. smfh
And they call us the science deniers?!?
Make up any figures you like to fit your model,follow the money !
Have you also noticed how people with rich political connections always have a “non profit” something or other to donate to each other and dodge paying taxes.
Right, and it's the fossil fuel companies with the money to pay for the disinformation you believe. Follow the money AND the scientific evidence. Do that and you'll be forced to change your position.
Koch industries? Murray energy? ExxonMobil? Or Solar world? Which one do you mean.
@@thertis580 If a person denies all evidence they should not be allowed to speak on the subject. Also if you don't believe the evidence put forth by both the oil companies and other independent scientists then you don't believe in science.
@@John-gq7vt It was also Exxonmobil who paid scientists to look at these things and then they dismiss the evidence for manmade climate change they got out of that and kept on trying to spread misinformation and hide the truth from the public.
Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help - yeah right!
Basically I get called a "climate denier" even though I don't dispute that climate changes or that humans affect it. I just don't buy the idea that it's going to cause the apocalypse. The conversation around climate is disturbingly dogmatic and almost religious in nature.
So is any subject where what we're taught/brainwashed by the mainstream media differs from the truth. Try having a rational discussion on the safety of vaccines, the carnivore diet or transgender rights and see how far you get with anyone who believes the official story/lie.
Climate change IS a religion. It has millions of followers who have no knowledge of whether it is real or not. Their belief is entirely based on faith, ie; it is a religion.
It even has a prophet in shape of a young woman from Sweden!
Remember science and nature always cuts the balls of economists theories.
The climate has changed . And will continue to change . Four times a year . And man can’t change it .
The seasonal changes is the climate. Climate does change over time with or without human actvity. How did the Ice Ages come to be? How did they go away?
Solar activity and volcanic activity are known to affect weather patterns.
The fact is that temperature and storm patterns will continuosly change. Humans will have to adapt or die.
But they are trying.
There are many solar cycles driven by the movements of the Sun, Earth and other Planets in our Solar System--Cycles may last for many years. Nothing man can do will change the cycles of the Sun!
I see you do understand the meaning of the word climate.
You're challenging the AGW religion with facts? HOW DARE YOU!!!
The first rule of science is disagreement, not agreement. For every major scientific discovery, only one agreed. The rest disagreed.
_For every major scientific discovery, only one agreed. The rest disagreed_
For every phenomenon, there are infinitely many false explanations, and exactly one correct explanation. Many, many of these possible explanations will be espoused by one person or another.
If you disagree with the conclusion of every other scientist, the likelihood that you are wrong is so near absolute that you're as surely wrong as anything else is sure in science. If you do it _without_ being the most brilliant scientist in the group, your odds are damn near zero.
Algore loved cap and trade because he was going to be the broker for the trades, making billions.
And that is an often repeated lie.
@@johnunderwood43 no it's not a lie. It's one hundred percent confirmed.
Well billions maybe an embellishment but his major company was a direct benefactor of cap and trade. I didn't believe it either but he's a grifter. A great one no doubt with sincerity in light-years, as well as hypocrisy and greed. Grifter champion, enough to make Bernie and Ponzi green with envy. Don't believe, or do, but you don't owe him defense, as he will never give you a cent, green common or otherwise. But he will use you up like fuel through his jet. Gore science is hinged upon policy. That science is political science. Pass protocols, use as cudgel, create consensus. How do you not know this at this point? Plenty of material on Al Gore's life, his mentor, his supporters, his father etc. Plenty of material from other Nobel scientists with differing conclusions than that of alarm. Not a single group of scientists arguing if the sun is made of cheese. Which dare I say will probably be the next thing. Al Gore is a hypocrite who profits immensely from being so, fine. But the data on sea levels has been done and proved minimal rise in some cases and coastline expansion in others and inconclusive as to why, satellite global temperature data by John Christy who I think was co recipient of Gore Nobel prize, has proved minimal and cause insufficiently conclusive as per IPCC own conclusion summary reports. Either I've been had twice or you've been had. The difference is, no one on your side is "being the change" their just clamoring for everyone else to be, which is where I draw it up now at the end of the day. So, by all means, give up all your "carbonized" associated lifestyle and go live in a yert on one of Al Gores estates and worship Gaia. Or don't. Either way is fine by me.