+Isaak “The Rocket Scientist” Winkelman Agreeeeeeeed. It is easy to be hopeless when you think about how illiterate and uneducated the majority of the developed world is.
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Not to be down on religion, but the only reasons people believe it is because it was literally the only source of knowledge for hundreds of years. Why can't humanity just get a little less ignorant than a rock?
+Steven McReynolds They are talking about the most disastrous event in humanities future, please take your juvenile daydreams and come back when you are more mature
Imagine if people were able to see this 40-75 years ago, two African American men, also two of the smartest people in the country, talking about climate change through the Internet.
Bill became one of my heroes back in the day, 1996 in public school with "The science guy" videos. Would be an honor to meet and talk to both of them about anything really.
+Robert Mac Nab Go catch Potholer54 and Greenman3610. They have a lot of videos featuring actually climate scientists speaking at all sorts of venues from lectures to congress.
We are still at the end of the last ice age, the planet is getting warmer with or without our help... other planets are also warming up. What if there is positive effects of global warming and more CO2, many farmers pump co2 into green houses to grow plants more optimally, the plants are benefiting from the co2 in the air and growing more faster and removing that co2. things will change, and some spots will look bad,.. but others will be able to grow food they weren't able too,.. change sucks, but what if over all the planet is getting better for humans with the warming? lets say its doom and gloom, what do we do to stop it,.. USA alone can not stop this,.. chiana , rusia , and enemies of ours are laughing at us being hippies,.. developing countries will not stop. you will not stop global warming with the laws you guys want,.. t will only make us weaker while other gather resources and power.. and as abusive as you think America is with its power, wait till you get a load of the new bosses. we need an economy and resources, I rather speed up to new technologies burning the sheet out of oil then walking our way there with a collapse economy.
I keep watching Bill and Neil... I keep wanting then to address the top claims by skeptics... And they just keep insulting people and making end of the world type alarmists claims.
baekin - what’s that link supposed to prove? Try a debate of these alarmists with scientists of the caliber of Lindzen, Dyson, Giaever, Singer, Soon, Shaviv, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Legates, Michaels. There was one debate recently setup by skeptic scientists with John Stossel moderating it and the alarmists never showed up!!!
There is no atmospheric hotspot The feedbacks implemented in the computer models have caused great exaggeration in the climate predictions. The climate will always change. Man is affecting that, so do cows.
Tommy's animal planet What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Please for one moment have an open mind. I am in no way a climate change denier - I truly believe that human activities are causing an increase in greenhouse gasses, which is a major contributor to climate change. My real question is this; in what way can science accurately quantify & qualify the claims of impact on our civilisation & way off life. By what measure can you honestly put your hand on your heart & say, "Without change, if we continue down the path we're going, THESE EVENTS will occur by this date". How much of the discussion on climate change is factual prediction & how much is doom and gloom/fear mongering?. If the Earth can recover from extinction level events like 6 mile meteor impacts, how "significant" is global warming in the big scheme of things? Sure we need to move forward with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but is "the threat" from Global Warming ever so slightly exaggerated? Science needs funding & it pays to be skeptical on both sides of the fence...
+Anamnesia IF people were less ignorant and too a good look around them, they'd see the effects of global warming already. I study wildlife biology, and even here we've seen a significant change in species distribution, where species are migrating further north as it becomes warmer, and I'm just talking about invertebrates here. That might not sound like a big deal, but norther species will find their ranges more and more limited. It's the same all over the world, and is a huge contributer to species extinction. And why sit on your ass because ''oh gee we've had worse extinctions'' if you can mitigate this one which is caused by us? You do realize that if ecosystems collapse, we are utterly fucked?
+Anamnesia " By what measure can you honestly put your hand on your heart & say, "Without change, if we continue down the path we're going, THESE EVENTS will occur by this date"." By several measures... sea level rise, temperature increase, current trends in the number of animals going extinct, etc... " If the Earth can recover from extinction level events like 6 mile meteor impacts, how "significant" is global warming in the big scheme of things?" If you don't care about humanity gets along. Global warming doesn't matter much to the rare animals living at the bottom of the ocean. If you care about animals living on land, then the answer to your question of "how significant" is "how significantly do you weigh the possibility of mass extinction even equivalent to 6 mile meteor impacts?" "How much of the discussion on climate change is factual prediction & how much is doom and gloom/fear mongering?" Most is factual prediction. Go read what the papers were saying in 2000 was going to happen by 2015... Most underestimated the impact. "but is "the threat" from Global Warming ever so slightly exaggerated?" The worst of it is actually that scientists tend to be pretty conservative when they're making future predictions, and most models from even 10-15 years ago, have underestimated the impact that we already see today. Will global warming and climate change be a huge, devastating effect in our lifetimes? Probably not. We're the lucky ones. Our actions today will determine how bad it is for humans 100-200 years from now though. "Science needs funding & it pays to be skeptical on both sides of the fence..." Not really... Anti-science morons hugely harm efforts to get funding for research and prevent legislative change that could make a difference.
+Mud Hut I'm not doubting that there are significant changes going on in many different ecosystems. A lot of these changes are caused by humans. How much of it is based on climate change though? Significant change is a natural process. Humans are influencing it for sure, but expecting this static equilibrium is short sighted. Things will inevitably change, species will inevitably go extinct, the planet will be warmer and colder in the future. What separates us from most other species is our ability to adapt and thrive in a range of different climates and environments. I think any claims that humanity will die out due to a few degrees of warming in a few hundred or even thousand years are less science based than young earth crackpots. Why a "scientist" like Bill Nye mockingly dismisses skeptics while simultaneously using weather events like the flooding in South Carolina as evidence we need to act now is beyond me. Even if the flooding in SC was 100% due to man made influence on warming the planet, it's not exactly doom and gloom to have 17 deaths across a population of 4.8 million people, many of which were people who actively avoided warnings and barriers. This is hardly the looming apocalypse that we need to focus humanity's efforts on. In the meantime, in developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass-fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung-to meet their energy needs for cooking. www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats These people can't afford to cut back on carbon emissions. And they sure can't afford solar panels. Far more people die every year because they can't afford energy than die because of even the worst estimates of CO2 emissions effects.
+danbert87 Actually we have been in a stable climate situation for longer than we have had agriculture. We have no idea if we are able to adapt to global climate change. At the moment we are surviving only by using large quantities of stored solar energy (at a rate of 1 million years of storage per year), which does not bode well.
Dr. Nye, I feel like I am behind the curve on science as a whole. I understand the subjects but can't give an answer with out some amount of smoke. I am very interested in how things work, and I am never one to settle for "because it is" type answers, but I don't find any out side stimuli, other then self research and your show with Dr. Tyson, from my day to day life, army and pc gamer. I am a very social learner and I would like to advance my scientific understanding, but as i said, there is no social out let for me to vent and receive feed back on my studies. How would you have me go about this problem?
I'm a scientifically literature person, but also a middle class single mother. How do I help. I vote, I write my Congressman, I petition my state Representative. What else can I do?
+Laura Ponicki Then you are already doing so much more than the vast majority of your compatriots. As a non-American who nevertheless has to suffer the consequences of your government's outrageous and immoral activities, I am very grateful to you. Please don't give up. Thanks Laura.
+Laura Ponicki Reduce your carbon foot-print. Use less electricity, drive less or carpool. Use glass bottles instead of plastic. Look into the cost of solar panels for your roof in your area. If everyone did that the problem would be negligible.
What puzzles me is why the alarmists can’t put together a convincing argument after 50 years of investigation and huge grants, whereas the sceptics, who get no grants, can and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The name "denier" implies something that cannot be questioned. Something of almost religious conviction. This is also reflected in the intolerance of different views even being heard on this topic. This is rather inappropriate since you are discussing science,something that should be permitted to be discussed freely,especially by scientists. Even Neil was more liberal when discussing the topic of religion,refusing to be identified as an atheist due to his scientific mind-set. Refusing to exclaim to the world that he does not accept something that by all standards imaginably is demonstrably false in the name of the spirit of science and yet willing to brand anyone who disputed the level of climate change(not the fact that it happens and that humans influence it,nobody disagrees on that. Its the significance that is disputed) ,something that no accurate scientific predictions have ever been made on and something that is still ripe for scientific discussion a "denier"? I detect cognitive dissonance. Name-calling never plays a role in healthy discussions,maybe if your having a religious discussion in the Dark Ages and you want to call someone a "heretic" then it would have some place.
Ever wonder why insurance rates went up for coastal property? Statisticians determined that. What about the US Navy that wants to save money by moving bases close to the oceans?
@@scottekoontz Premiums probably went up because more people live in coastal areas today. Homes being built today are also more expensive The Climate Cult does not have any good answers . LMAO!
@@evagelosdrinis7656insurance rates went up because of high losses due to catastrophic weather. Some insurance companies have stopped issuing new policies and even cancelled existing ones because of all the natural disasters.
I know "Intelligent design" isn't accurate science, but I like the concept because it opens the door for kids of creationist parents to have access to scientific principals that could ultimately allow them to look at Ken Ham and realize that his beliefs are 2500 years behind the times.
Mr. Chuck Nice has a very true point starting 2:28 min. Deniers will always find a way to deny no matter what happens. Nevermind if it is warmer/hotter than ever , it's definitly not the climate change.
You got it quite backwards. Climate change sceptics know the climate is constantly changing. That's why its called climate change instead of a static climate. Alarmist insist if it warms it has to be man made, without every proving it.
@@roberthicks1612 Deniers say it's a circulating system... so it's going up and down, climate changes and so they say climate will go down on one point. So when they earth is on fire they and it's not getting cooler again they still think it will get cooler again and shouldn't do anything against it. They are called deniers cause they deny every evidence they get... evidences are no evidences to them. Climate change is constantly changing no question but human responsibility is what they deny although the greatest scientist confirm that human have responsibility. This is they right way to handle this problem: ruclips.net/video/BDj6WechLhw/видео.html
I don't have any clue what deniers say as I have never met one. Sceptics demands proof and they demand it uses STANDARD SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES, which alarmist insist are not necessary. Those procedures were designed by centuries of scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud and the only reason to not do them it if you are deliberately scamming science. The earth has not been on fire since the days the asteroid smashed into the earth and that was only for a matter of hours. I have no idea where any of that has any basis in fact or even anything but your feverish delusions. It is impossible to say how much of climate change is man made or natural because we have no way to separate one from the other.
You post a link from a science fiction writer named Christopher Hitchens as if it is science. He states "we should act as if it were real because we do not have another planet." What he does not state is that what he and other alarmist want is the destruction of our civilization. The real reason is they want to take control over the world population and make every one else slaves.
@@roberthicks1612 It not science it is just a great argument... and hdon't reduce him sci fi writer only... he was a brilliant man and not adumb believer. He knew structures of religions very well. And religion is a thing deniers call climate change. His statement is the "worst case scenario" which fits perfectly. And he is not an alarmist... he clearly says in the video that he never made statement to that before... what is far from alarming. So listen carefully what he says. Ruling the world and make us slaves...? That sounds way too much like a conspiracy theory. So AAALL the science want to take over the world by saying us what to do. Do you think scientists are that stupid to think that plan works out? They try to slave us, we notice some day and get mad about it and they lose our trust and maybe and there will be the worst violence you can imagine. No... come on.. scientists aren't that stupid. And that only because we should save our earth be using renewable energies etc etc etc to reduce CO2?
I loved it when NDT promptly corrected the guy who said "eminent" instead of "imminent". Gosh, where are teachers like you these days? These days, if you correct people, they come up with some idiotic retort like "You must be great at parties" or "That's what I heard people I know say, so it can't be wrong".
I seriously get the feeling sometimes that the folks on this show don't give Chuck the benefit of the doubt. Sure, his main job in the studio is to make jokes. But sometimes, sometimes, he's making a serious - AND VALID - statement, and Neil and/or Bill will shut him down, and that's not cool.
I would recommend Bill Nye to read e.g. the study of Ana-Maria Bliuc's (et al.) study on peer group identity and acceptance of climate change. They (and other studies, Naomi Klein's latest book's introductory chapters make also for a nice overview of the subject) and others find, that people with a comparable and high level of scientific literacy of different groups come to different conclusions on the urgency of climate change action based on their social background. This is not only relevant on the national debate level, but in terms of emissions, much more on the global scale - and impossibly harder to solve than to convince deniers in the developed world. Many Indians I have talked with recognize the climate change problem and feel deeply about it. Yet at the same time, how can you even try to find the moral highground to deny billions of people the highest achievable living standard in the shortest amount of time - a human lifespan? As Vaclav Smil has shown in his books, the level of living standards and GDP per capita is linearly correlated with energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, the economic urgency to deploy the power needed will prevent renewables to catch up with that longing. Not overruling scientific literacy, but recognizing the force of more essential needs.
Hey StarTalk Radio, i wanna ask a Question: If we could attach the Moon to the Earth permanently, lets say, a Tower. How would it affect the Earths rotation in the System? Would the Rotation of the Moon alter Earth's since its attached now? Tide would be affected as well? Love the Show, Hanazaki
I think the key is those particular people w/their hands on the levers of power. If these politicians merely personally disbelieved in climate change, then why would they make it a centerstone issue in their campaigns? What motive would they have? After all, as an example, how does it hurt them if more people use solar, even if they are correct about climate change and there's truly no need for anyone to go solar? Its still more jobs and more money in the pockets of their constituents and even if it did no environmental good, it certainly does no environmental harm. Even if they were right, the issue wouldn't, by itself, be worthy of making a stink over. But they do because simple belief is not their motive, its that their richest donors want them to derail attempts fighting climate change on their behalf, so that they can protect their bottom line. And to get elected and stay elected so that they can do the bidding of their richest donors, they have to convince enough voters to agree, or at least doubt - so their donors spend, through PAC's and such, more money than all of us watching this video combined make in a year, on ads to get their politician elected. Its that important to them. Not just some weird personal belief. There's no way the science literate are going to catch up, not when the climate change deniers are willing to move the earth and spend such wealth in order sway people otherwise. We need in some way to make it far more profitable to fight climate change than it is to deny it. And by 'profitable' i don't mean - in the interest of humanity. That unfortunately is not great enough of a motivator. It already is and has been known to be in the interests of humanity to fight climate change and look where we are now in spite of this. No, I mean cold hard bottom line on the accounting books kind of profitable, money in the bank kind of profitable. Otherwise, the best case scenario is that they'll merely delay or dilute efforts to fight climate change, which is still potentially enough to have catastrophic results down the line. Worst case scenario is they'll increase the acceleration rate of climate change to even greater degrees. Need to take their hands off the levers of power, or get enough disagreeing hands on other levers of power, or to get these lever handlers to agree w/us by making it profitable for them to do so, so that they use these levers for everyone's benefit (even if their motives are selfish).
@@scottekoontz dude cut it out..we r entering a solar minimum...accualy a grand solar minimum the global warm period is officially over!!! Co2 does not harm us.the co2 levels have been far higher all threw out geological history n life thrived!!!! All the ice core datta n solar cycle datta agree that climatw is cyclical ippc predicions over 300 percent.wrong!!! And the.97 % of climate scientists that agree .....not even close.the.survay they refer to was done by an unemployed cartoonist...n i personally know of over 80 of those accual scientista that say they dont support it at all n they were misrepresen..the whole thing is a big scam n trump is about to have the ippc audited....n found guilty of all the.money they been stealing!!!!!
@@georgehallamalltreedup5346 "we r (sic) entering a solar minimum" For quite some time now, and no cooling. Why? CO2. "co2 levels have been far higher all threw (sic) out geological history n (sic) life thrived!!!!" Not for the past 1M+ years it hasn't. Timescale is everything. I'm having trouble reading the rest of that 156 IQ writing style.
It most emphatically does NOT depend on who you ask. People may differ in their opinions, but there is only one correct answer, and everyone else is just wrong.
I'm not a religious person but my question is how many ice ages have there been? If there has been many doesn't that mean the Earth has a natural tendency to heat up and cool down on its own.
+Gregory Yarbrough Yes, that is the natural cycle. It occurs over eons. The scientist are well aware of this. The natural cycle is long more forgiving to the process of evolution, which as you may know is a very slow process. Yes, we are always moving towards another ice age, but very very slowly. Climate change is about relatively rapid warming that challenges evolution which has produced the conditions necessary for human life (vegetation, temperature, water phases, etc). Our bioshphere has evolved slowly and humans along with it in a delicate balance. Rapid changes risk the delicate balance. That is the real problem with climate change.
CO2 does not cause global warming because... CO2 is a heavy gas Being one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere CO2 stays low, hugging the ground and allowing plants to photosynthesize. Have you ever heard of plants thriving in the higher atmosphere? According to the climate change theories, the biggest problem is the CO2 which is somehow getting into the higher atmosphere, this way creating the greenhouse effect. Now, how can a very heavy gas rise up where there's little or no air? I'd like to see a mechanism that allows the CO2 gas to be high up and low down at the same time. People I asked about this gave at least a whole page of "facts" that none of which made sense and are often contradicting each other. Truth shouldn't be complicated. If it is, it's probably a lie.
Who said truth should not be complicate, since when nature cares about what humans find easy to understand? Conspiracy theories are usually super simple, because they are made to easily make sense to people who have no idea about what they are talking about, that's why people who actually study the subject for a living don't believe in wordpress conspiracy blogs. Now for the answer, CO2 does actually sink when it's concentrate but after air currents mix it with the air around it, it doesn't sink anymore because those small molecules that are far away from each other have a bunch of other molecules jiggling around them and pushing them in several directions against gravity, and the higher you go the lower the gravity is. You used a interesting example saying that low CO2 allows plants to breath, that's true, but you forgot that we are not plants, if it existed down here due to weight and not mixing it would fill the surface of the Earth pushing all Oxygen upwards and killing us all. The fact that we have both heavy and light molecules down here means that they are kept mixed by kinetic energy, and we can prove that's also mixed up there by just going in a balloon and filling a bag with air as we have done several times to study differences in atmospheric layers. The reason that high altitude is bad for plants is the same reason that's bad for humans, the higher you go the less dense the air is. Also it's very cold up there, which also makes photosynthesizes more difficult. The same apply to other gases and materials, mixed CO2 behaves differently from pure CO2 just like gold mixed with copper behaves differently from pure gold. Not really that complicate after all isn't? So yeah, unsurprisingly, this isn't some big flaw in global warming that thousands of scientists studying the subject for years somehow failed to notice, it's a trivial piece of information that you could have googled yourself.
just to reinforce the point: collision between jiggling particles don't just keep air mixed. it keeps it floating. Without it not just CO2 but _all air_ would fall flat on the floor and life on earth would be gone.
Assuming the entire world was America, this argument might have some actual basis in reality. But considering most of us don't live the United States, and most of the 7 billion people on this earth are not scientifically minded and have no way to access science based ideas (How many kids in the slums of Calcutta are surfing the internet? How many countries have firewalls?) Even if the United States went completely solar and wind and battery driven cars, it would not change a thing. Of top 500 dirtiest cities in the world, not one resides in the United States.
+Aaron Sacks It doesn't matter what any scientist says. Only what he can provide evidence and solid argument for. The evidence that they present is so weak that it convinces almost no one.
+SarthorS I invite you too look at this Israeli physicists work. Nir Shaviv. His arguments are pretty compelling and the solar cycle variations graph is pretty spot on with earth's temperature over the last 30 years. Here is the graph: he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA#/media/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
I don't know where you learned statistics but a point that strays from the trend of over 30 years, does not a fact disprove.....and it's not my claim it's the Nir Shaviv's and many other cosmoligst's claim en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv. And it does look reasonable. the graph from the comic rays overlaps the earth's temperature allot better than the predictions from co2 emissions. anyway I just wanted to ask a well know cosmologist like Mr. Tyson what he thought about it. That's all. It's not even my idea, a well known physics Nir Shaviv thought it up, proved it (as much as can be proved) and no one yet has successfully rebutted him.
co2 vs temp graph: he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Co2-temperature-plot.png solar cycle vs temp graph: he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Solar-cycle-data.png To me it looks like the solar cycle one fits allot better.
But I like it big, and when I take all of this into my heart and my mind, I am uplifted by it. And when I have that feeling, I want to know that it's real. humbling and characterbuilding
which shows exactly that they aren’t! What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
What ever happened to environmental awareness and sustainability?... what is all this vague climate change b.s. I know I am the odd man out here but the approach these guys have taken to explain their positions on climate change just doesn't seem rational, and rather sensationalistic. Comparing those who disagree with new and radical information to hardcore creationists is a good example of this sensationalism. I think they are authentically passionate because they are scared for the planet and our species, but that does not mean they are being sound in diverting almost all public attention away from established and needed environmental sustainability efforts. I personally care more about the pollution in all its horrible forms caused by cars in general and less about carbon specifically. How about our water and food supply? etc.
I'm religious but creationists are ignorant. I believe God created the earth because he created and set in motion all it is made of, along with the rest of the universe. A "day" is likely a figurative term meaning "A set interval of time". I also believe we humans have greater intelligence than animals and are therefore responsible for this planet and we are to keep it clean and in good order.
They did not address the issue of the lack of empirical evidence for the climate disaster theory. If you look at the list of references in any climate-alarmist study, they always cite computer-models which are not empirical evidence. Since the tipping point for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be proven to exist, then it has to be concluded that there is no problem (,because the amount of CO2 that humans put out is a fraction of what exist without our influence).
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Show them how co2 levels rise everytime we go into a solar minimum...show them neil...tell them the earth is trying its best to produce co2 to keep us from all freezing....u r an evil mann!!!
Those Creationists seem to forget that the Chinese calendar is already over 6,000 years old. I guess we Asians and our Celestial Bureaucracy Pantheon of gods predate god. Trollolol.
we are in serious trouble. undersea methane deposits are starting to release their contents to the surface. dumping methane in to the atmosphere. this is going to cause a positive feedback loop that is going to kill most life on earth. we may already be at that tipping point today.
It's so sad how Christians give up on the earth. As a person who believes strongly in both God and science, I would think it's our job as Christians to be blessings to the world. That means taking responsibility for the mess we've made of earth and doing our best to fix it, not twiddling our thumbs until Jesus comes.
They are all comedians! *Fact : The current warming trend is not unprecented either by magnitude or rate. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Do you not expect temperature to rise during interglacials? Rising temperatures cause the oceans to release C02, which explains most of the increase of that gas in the atmosphere* *The illusion of recent sharp increases in temperature and C02 is created by grafting accurate, high, resolution instrumental data (thermometer, satellite, etc) to lower resolution proxy data from reconstructions (ice core or tree ring). This "mike's nature trick" as the con men behind it refer to it as, has been exposed by climategate. Mike = Michael Mann, who with his team is responsible for the first hockey shtick graph.* *Reconstructed data is long term and continuous but lacks accuracy. One problem with ice core data is that ice can take many centuries to fully seal off enclosed gas. During this time the gas is free to float around and rise up. This effectively averages out the gas composition, creating a mismatch between gas and ice at any level. Ice core and tree ring temperature data is fairly accurate. Ice core C02 however, is very inaccurate. Better methods of C02 measurement including plant stomata records, an indirect method, and old wet chemical measurements, direct highly accurate method second only to modern techniques, yield results with much better accuracy / resolution (though lack range). The propagandists know this, but still use lower quality ice core proxy data and graft it with better data to make it look like the sky is falling!* *Key Points :* *1) The current magnitude of warming has been met or matched by the medieval warming period, which was not a local event as propagandists claim.* *2) The current rate of warming is the same as the 1910 - 1940 rate, during which C02 emissions were less than 1/4th of what they are today.* *3) This rate is also roughly equal to the rate experienced when the climate was initially exiting the last ice age aka "the little ice age".* *Again, why should temperature not be higher than it was during the last ice age?*
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears. I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Megaman The Second For the last 4000+ years, professional fearmongers have been real good at predicting when they are planning on retiring, but not much else.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I ate and now I'm not hungry - therefore, there is no more world hunger ...
In a parallel universe, there's a version of Bill Nye which doesn't endorse climate change. He would be Bill Nye, the Denial Guy.
+Francesco “Fraardvark” Fagiani He would also be german, like "Bill Nein" So his theme song would basically say No a lot of times.
+Francesco “Fraardvark” Fagiani I am pretty sure you can fit a pun in there.
In that same universe USA would be the greatest country
GlennCocoGuitar #shotsfired
Bill Nye, the denial guy is much, much better than Bill-Nyal, which I coined :(
If more people listened to these guys, the world would be a better place.
yes ...yes it will
+Isaak “The Rocket Scientist” Winkelman Agreeeeeeeed. It is easy to be hopeless when you think about how illiterate and uneducated the majority of the developed world is.
These guys are false idols of the Devil. Liars. Seriously.
William Levy
Thats why Christianity has killed millions of people over history huh?
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Not to be down on religion, but the only reasons people believe it is because it was literally the only source of knowledge for hundreds of years. Why can't humanity just get a little less ignorant than a rock?
i want to see them react to the bill nye vs sir issac newton rap battle
+Steven McReynolds I've been wanting this ever since it got released.
+Steven McReynolds I want to see Neil react to that Key & Peele Sketch.
+Steven McReynolds They are talking about the most disastrous event in humanities future, please take your juvenile daydreams and come back when you are more mature
gothicalpha said the one acting juvenile
I'm afraid your too much of a child to recognize maturity, I'm so sorry for you... Btw who are you?
Imagine if people were able to see this 40-75 years ago, two African American men, also two of the smartest people in the country, talking about climate change through the Internet.
Love Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. I hope I can meet them someday.
+LaylaLover90 Same
Bill became one of my heroes back in the day, 1996 in public school with "The science guy" videos. Would be an honor to meet and talk to both of them about anything really.
neal is easy to meet if you live in new york.
+Jose Colon Is he act the museum a lot?
+LaylaLover90 Go to one of the star talk live shows, it well worth it! :) Went to NYC to see one a few weeks ago. No bill nye though =/
why don't they ever have actual climatologist on to speak about climate change
+Robert Mac Nab
Go catch Potholer54 and Greenman3610. They have a lot of videos featuring actually climate scientists speaking at all sorts of venues from lectures to congress.
+Robert Mac Nab Because most climatologist really suck at public speaking lol
We are still at the end of the last ice age, the planet is getting warmer with or without our help... other planets are also warming up. What if there is positive effects of global warming and more CO2, many farmers pump co2 into green houses to grow plants more optimally, the plants are benefiting from the co2 in the air and growing more faster and removing that co2. things will change, and some spots will look bad,.. but others will be able to grow food they weren't able too,.. change sucks, but what if over all the planet is getting better for humans with the warming? lets say its doom and gloom, what do we do to stop it,.. USA alone can not stop this,.. chiana , rusia , and enemies of ours are laughing at us being hippies,.. developing countries will not stop. you will not stop global warming with the laws you guys want,.. t will only make us weaker while other gather resources and power.. and as abusive as you think America is with its power, wait till you get a load of the new bosses. we need an economy and resources, I rather speed up to new technologies burning the sheet out of oil then walking our way there with a collapse economy.
I keep watching Bill and Neil... I keep wanting then to address the top claims by skeptics... And they just keep insulting people and making end of the world type alarmists claims.
Justin McCartney ruclips.net/video/6hCRafyV0zI/видео.html
baekin - what’s that link supposed to prove? Try a debate of these alarmists with scientists of the caliber of Lindzen, Dyson, Giaever, Singer, Soon, Shaviv, Christy, Spencer, Curry, Legates, Michaels. There was one debate recently setup by skeptic scientists with John Stossel moderating it and the alarmists never showed up!!!
There is no atmospheric hotspot
The feedbacks implemented in the computer models have caused great exaggeration in the climate predictions.
The climate will always change.
Man is affecting that, so do cows.
Tommy's animal planet What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Hey! Where can I see the whole podcast?
Any way to view all these but full episodes? It gives so much more to actually look at you talk vs just podcast with sound.
("As we say in sailboat racing". The ultimate Bill Nye quote.)
Scientific literacy is an absolute need.
Can we get full length episodes on a regular schedule?
The biggest obstacle to addressing the climate change issues is economics.
No it is the US political system.
Dr Tyson, Take it easy on Chuck. No need to correct him every time he uses the wrong word.
Chuck... You did use the wrong word.
Please for one moment have an open mind. I am in no way a climate change denier - I truly believe that human activities are causing an increase in greenhouse gasses, which is a major contributor to climate change. My real question is this; in what way can science accurately quantify & qualify the claims of impact on our civilisation & way off life. By what measure can you honestly put your hand on your heart & say, "Without change, if we continue down the path we're going, THESE EVENTS will occur by this date". How much of the discussion on climate change is factual prediction & how much is doom and gloom/fear mongering?. If the Earth can recover from extinction level events like 6 mile meteor impacts, how "significant" is global warming in the big scheme of things? Sure we need to move forward with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but is "the threat" from Global Warming ever so slightly exaggerated? Science needs funding & it pays to be skeptical on both sides of the fence...
Oh, the Earth will survive. The problem is that we won't.
+Anamnesia
IF people were less ignorant and too a good look around them, they'd see the effects of global warming already.
I study wildlife biology, and even here we've seen a significant change in species distribution, where species are migrating further north as it becomes warmer, and I'm just talking about invertebrates here. That might not sound like a big deal, but norther species will find their ranges more and more limited. It's the same all over the world, and is a huge contributer to species extinction.
And why sit on your ass because ''oh gee we've had worse extinctions'' if you can mitigate this one which is caused by us? You do realize that if ecosystems collapse, we are utterly fucked?
+Anamnesia
" By what measure can you honestly put your hand on your heart & say, "Without change, if we continue down the path we're going, THESE EVENTS will occur by this date"."
By several measures... sea level rise, temperature increase, current trends in the number of animals going extinct, etc...
" If the Earth can recover from extinction level events like 6 mile meteor impacts, how "significant" is global warming in the big scheme of things?"
If you don't care about humanity gets along. Global warming doesn't matter much to the rare animals living at the bottom of the ocean. If you care about animals living on land, then the answer to your question of "how significant" is "how significantly do you weigh the possibility of mass extinction even equivalent to 6 mile meteor impacts?"
"How much of the discussion on climate change is factual prediction & how much is doom and gloom/fear mongering?"
Most is factual prediction. Go read what the papers were saying in 2000 was going to happen by 2015... Most underestimated the impact.
"but is "the threat" from Global Warming ever so slightly exaggerated?"
The worst of it is actually that scientists tend to be pretty conservative when they're making future predictions, and most models from even 10-15 years ago, have underestimated the impact that we already see today.
Will global warming and climate change be a huge, devastating effect in our lifetimes? Probably not. We're the lucky ones. Our actions today will determine how bad it is for humans 100-200 years from now though.
"Science needs funding & it pays to be skeptical on both sides of the fence..."
Not really... Anti-science morons hugely harm efforts to get funding for research and prevent legislative change that could make a difference.
+Mud Hut I'm not doubting that there are significant changes going on in many different ecosystems. A lot of these changes are caused by humans. How much of it is based on climate change though? Significant change is a natural process. Humans are influencing it for sure, but expecting this static equilibrium is short sighted. Things will inevitably change, species will inevitably go extinct, the planet will be warmer and colder in the future.
What separates us from most other species is our ability to adapt and thrive in a range of different climates and environments. I think any claims that humanity will die out due to a few degrees of warming in a few hundred or even thousand years are less science based than young earth crackpots. Why a "scientist" like Bill Nye mockingly dismisses skeptics while simultaneously using weather events like the flooding in South Carolina as evidence we need to act now is beyond me. Even if the flooding in SC was 100% due to man made influence on warming the planet, it's not exactly doom and gloom to have 17 deaths across a population of 4.8 million people, many of which were people who actively avoided warnings and barriers. This is hardly the looming apocalypse that we need to focus humanity's efforts on. In the meantime, in developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass-fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung-to meet their energy needs for cooking. www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
These people can't afford to cut back on carbon emissions. And they sure can't afford solar panels. Far more people die every year because they can't afford energy than die because of even the worst estimates of CO2 emissions effects.
+danbert87
Actually we have been in a stable climate situation for longer than we have had agriculture. We have no idea if we are able to adapt to global climate change.
At the moment we are surviving only by using large quantities of stored solar energy (at a rate of 1 million years of storage per year), which does not bode well.
Dr. Nye, I feel like I am behind the curve on science as a whole. I understand the subjects but can't give an answer with out some amount of smoke. I am very interested in how things work, and I am never one to settle for "because it is" type answers, but I don't find any out side stimuli, other then self research and your show with Dr. Tyson, from my day to day life, army and pc gamer. I am a very social learner and I would like to advance my scientific understanding, but as i said, there is no social out let for me to vent and receive feed back on my studies. How would you have me go about this problem?
You can also join science pages on Facebook.
"and I am never one to settle for "because it is" type answers"
Then you already know more about science than these clowns.
I'm a scientifically literature person, but also a middle class single mother. How do I help. I vote, I write my Congressman, I petition my state Representative. What else can I do?
+Laura Ponicki *literate
+Laura Ponicki Be vocal among your peers. Stand by your opinion. Research your opinion, so you can argue using facts and critical thinking.
+Laura Ponicki
Then you are already doing so much more than the vast majority of your compatriots. As a non-American who nevertheless has to suffer the consequences of your government's outrageous and immoral activities, I am very grateful to you. Please don't give up. Thanks Laura.
+Laura Ponicki Reduce your carbon foot-print. Use less electricity, drive less or carpool. Use glass bottles instead of plastic. Look into the cost of solar panels for your roof in your area. If everyone did that the problem would be negligible.
Learn some science and don't be Alarmed by a TV personality, comedian and failed engineer.
What puzzles me is why the alarmists can’t put together a convincing argument after 50 years of investigation and huge grants, whereas the sceptics, who get no grants, can and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The name "denier" implies something that cannot be questioned. Something of almost religious conviction. This is also reflected in the intolerance of different views even being heard on this topic. This is rather inappropriate since you are discussing science,something that should be permitted to be discussed freely,especially by scientists. Even Neil was more liberal when discussing the topic of religion,refusing to be identified as an atheist due to his scientific mind-set. Refusing to exclaim to the world that he does not accept something that by all standards imaginably is demonstrably false in the name of the spirit of science and yet willing to brand anyone who disputed the level of climate change(not the fact that it happens and that humans influence it,nobody disagrees on that. Its the significance that is disputed) ,something that no accurate scientific predictions have ever been made on and something that is still ripe for scientific discussion a "denier"? I detect cognitive dissonance.
Name-calling never plays a role in healthy discussions,maybe if your having a religious discussion in the Dark Ages and you want to call someone a "heretic" then it would have some place.
+problematic indeed
If climate change is real and sea levels will rise, i wonder why banks still give out loans to people who live in targeted areas.
Ever wonder why insurance rates went up for coastal property? Statisticians determined that. What about the US Navy that wants to save money by moving bases close to the oceans?
@@scottekoontz Premiums probably went up because more people live in coastal areas today. Homes being built today are also more expensive The Climate Cult does not have any good answers . LMAO!
@Drogsux Icaris How many years will it take Climate Cultist? What is your prophesy? LMAO!
@@evagelosdrinis7656insurance rates went up because of high losses due to catastrophic weather. Some insurance companies have stopped issuing new policies and even cancelled existing ones because of all the natural disasters.
@@georgesimon1760 Correct natural disasters not man made.
I know "Intelligent design" isn't accurate science, but I like the concept because it opens the door for kids of creationist parents to have access to scientific principals that could ultimately allow them to look at Ken Ham and realize that his beliefs are 2500 years behind the times.
The most impressive thing about this video is the realization of just how amazing Ken M. really is
2:30 Neil acting like he doesnt know the camera is on him. xD
The quality of these videos keeps getting better.
Mr. Chuck Nice has a very true point starting 2:28 min. Deniers will always find a way to deny no matter what happens. Nevermind if it is warmer/hotter than ever , it's definitly not the climate change.
You got it quite backwards. Climate change sceptics know the climate is constantly changing. That's why its called climate change instead of a static climate. Alarmist insist if it warms it has to be man made, without every proving it.
@@roberthicks1612 Deniers say it's a circulating system... so it's going up and down, climate changes and so they say climate will go down on one point. So when they earth is on fire they and it's not getting cooler again they still think it will get cooler again and shouldn't do anything against it. They are called deniers cause they deny every evidence they get... evidences are no evidences to them. Climate change is constantly changing no question but human responsibility is what they deny although the greatest scientist confirm that human have responsibility.
This is they right way to handle this problem: ruclips.net/video/BDj6WechLhw/видео.html
I don't have any clue what deniers say as I have never met one.
Sceptics demands proof and they demand it uses STANDARD SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES, which alarmist insist are not necessary. Those procedures were designed by centuries of scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud and the only reason to not do them it if you are deliberately scamming science.
The earth has not been on fire since the days the asteroid smashed into the earth and that was only for a matter of hours.
I have no idea where any of that has any basis in fact or even anything but your feverish delusions.
It is impossible to say how much of climate change is man made or natural because we have no way to separate one from the other.
You post a link from a science fiction writer named Christopher Hitchens as if it is science. He states "we should act as if it were real because we do not have another planet." What he does not state is that what he and other alarmist want is the destruction of our civilization. The real reason is they want to take control over the world population and make every one else slaves.
@@roberthicks1612 It not science it is just a great argument... and hdon't reduce him sci fi writer only... he was a brilliant man and not adumb believer. He knew structures of religions very well. And religion is a thing deniers call climate change. His statement is the "worst case scenario" which fits perfectly. And he is not an alarmist... he clearly says in the video that he never made statement to that before... what is far from alarming. So listen carefully what he says. Ruling the world and make us slaves...? That sounds way too much like a conspiracy theory. So AAALL the science want to take over the world by saying us what to do. Do you think scientists are that stupid to think that plan works out? They try to slave us, we notice some day and get mad about it and they lose our trust and maybe and there will be the worst violence you can imagine. No... come on.. scientists aren't that stupid. And that only because we should save our earth be using renewable energies etc etc etc to reduce CO2?
I loved it when NDT promptly corrected the guy who said "eminent" instead of "imminent". Gosh, where are teachers like you these days? These days, if you correct people, they come up with some idiotic retort like "You must be great at parties" or "That's what I heard people I know say, so it can't be wrong".
I seriously get the feeling sometimes that the folks on this show don't give Chuck the benefit of the doubt. Sure, his main job in the studio is to make jokes. But sometimes, sometimes, he's making a serious - AND VALID - statement, and Neil and/or Bill will shut him down, and that's not cool.
I would recommend Bill Nye to read e.g. the study of Ana-Maria Bliuc's (et al.) study on peer group identity and acceptance of climate change. They (and other studies, Naomi Klein's latest book's introductory chapters make also for a nice overview of the subject) and others find, that people with a comparable and high level of scientific literacy of different groups come to different conclusions on the urgency of climate change action based on their social background. This is not only relevant on the national debate level, but in terms of emissions, much more on the global scale - and impossibly harder to solve than to convince deniers in the developed world. Many Indians I have talked with recognize the climate change problem and feel deeply about it. Yet at the same time, how can you even try to find the moral highground to deny billions of people the highest achievable living standard in the shortest amount of time - a human lifespan? As Vaclav Smil has shown in his books, the level of living standards and GDP per capita is linearly correlated with energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, the economic urgency to deploy the power needed will prevent renewables to catch up with that longing. Not overruling scientific literacy, but recognizing the force of more essential needs.
Hey StarTalk Radio, i wanna ask a Question: If we could attach the Moon to the Earth permanently, lets say, a Tower. How would it affect the Earths rotation in the System? Would the Rotation of the Moon alter Earth's since its attached now?
Tide would be affected as well?
Love the Show, Hanazaki
I think the key is those particular people w/their hands on the levers of power.
If these politicians merely personally disbelieved in climate change, then why would they make it a centerstone issue in their campaigns? What motive would they have? After all, as an example, how does it hurt them if more people use solar, even if they are correct about climate change and there's truly no need for anyone to go solar? Its still more jobs and more money in the pockets of their constituents and even if it did no environmental good, it certainly does no environmental harm. Even if they were right, the issue wouldn't, by itself, be worthy of making a stink over. But they do because simple belief is not their motive, its that their richest donors want them to derail attempts fighting climate change on their behalf, so that they can protect their bottom line. And to get elected and stay elected so that they can do the bidding of their richest donors, they have to convince enough voters to agree, or at least doubt - so their donors spend, through PAC's and such, more money than all of us watching this video combined make in a year, on ads to get their politician elected. Its that important to them. Not just some weird personal belief. There's no way the science literate are going to catch up, not when the climate change deniers are willing to move the earth and spend such wealth in order sway people otherwise.
We need in some way to make it far more profitable to fight climate change than it is to deny it. And by 'profitable' i don't mean - in the interest of humanity. That unfortunately is not great enough of a motivator. It already is and has been known to be in the interests of humanity to fight climate change and look where we are now in spite of this. No, I mean cold hard bottom line on the accounting books kind of profitable, money in the bank kind of profitable. Otherwise, the best case scenario is that they'll merely delay or dilute efforts to fight climate change, which is still potentially enough to have catastrophic results down the line. Worst case scenario is they'll increase the acceleration rate of climate change to even greater degrees. Need to take their hands off the levers of power, or get enough disagreeing hands on other levers of power, or to get these lever handlers to agree w/us by making it profitable for them to do so, so that they use these levers for everyone's benefit (even if their motives are selfish).
They never show u any evidence...i wonder y that iss?????
Lots of evidence. Want links to the skeptics who worked on climate science?
@@scottekoontz dude cut it out..we r entering a solar minimum...accualy a grand solar minimum the global warm period is officially over!!! Co2 does not harm us.the co2 levels have been far higher all threw out geological history n life thrived!!!! All the ice core datta n solar cycle datta agree that climatw is cyclical ippc predicions over 300 percent.wrong!!! And the.97 % of climate scientists that agree .....not even close.the.survay they refer to was done by an unemployed cartoonist...n i personally know of over 80 of those accual scientista that say they dont support it at all n they were misrepresen..the whole thing is a big scam n trump is about to have the ippc audited....n found guilty of all the.money they been stealing!!!!!
@@scottekoontz i dont want links to any people that believe lies..thank u though..lmfao...my iq is 156 dude......nice try....lmfao
@@georgehallamalltreedup5346 Sure, you type like someone with a 156 IQ.
@@georgehallamalltreedup5346 "we r (sic) entering a solar minimum" For quite some time now, and no cooling. Why? CO2.
"co2 levels have been far higher all threw (sic) out geological history n (sic) life thrived!!!!" Not for the past 1M+ years it hasn't. Timescale is everything.
I'm having trouble reading the rest of that 156 IQ writing style.
It most emphatically does NOT depend on who you ask. People may differ in their opinions, but there is only one correct answer, and everyone else is just wrong.
I'm not a religious person but my question is how many ice ages have there been? If there has been many doesn't that mean the Earth has a natural tendency to heat up and cool down on its own.
+Gregory Yarbrough Yes, that is the natural cycle. It occurs over eons. The scientist are well aware of this. The natural cycle is long more forgiving to the process of evolution, which as you may know is a very slow process. Yes, we are always moving towards another ice age, but very very slowly. Climate change is about relatively rapid warming that challenges evolution which has produced the conditions necessary for human life (vegetation, temperature, water phases, etc). Our bioshphere has evolved slowly and humans along with it in a delicate balance. Rapid changes risk the delicate balance. That is the real problem with climate change.
CO2 does not cause global warming because...
CO2 is a heavy gas
Being one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere CO2 stays low, hugging the ground and allowing plants to photosynthesize. Have you ever heard of plants thriving in the higher atmosphere?
According to the climate change theories, the biggest problem is the CO2 which is somehow getting into the higher atmosphere, this way creating the greenhouse effect. Now, how can a very heavy gas rise up where there's little or no air? I'd like to see a mechanism that allows the CO2 gas to be high up and low down at the same time. People I asked about this gave at least a whole page of "facts" that none of which made sense and are often contradicting each other. Truth shouldn't be complicated. If it is, it's probably a lie.
Who said truth should not be complicate, since when nature cares about what humans find easy to understand? Conspiracy theories are usually super simple, because they are made to easily make sense to people who have no idea about what they are talking about, that's why people who actually study the subject for a living don't believe in wordpress conspiracy blogs.
Now for the answer, CO2 does actually sink when it's concentrate but after air currents mix it with the air around it, it doesn't sink anymore because those small molecules that are far away from each other have a bunch of other molecules jiggling around them and pushing them in several directions against gravity, and the higher you go the lower the gravity is.
You used a interesting example saying that low CO2 allows plants to breath, that's true, but you forgot that we are not plants, if it existed down here due to weight and not mixing it would fill the surface of the Earth pushing all Oxygen upwards and killing us all. The fact that we have both heavy and light molecules down here means that they are kept mixed by kinetic energy, and we can prove that's also mixed up there by just going in a balloon and filling a bag with air as we have done several times to study differences in atmospheric layers.
The reason that high altitude is bad for plants is the same reason that's bad for humans, the higher you go the less dense the air is. Also it's very cold up there, which also makes photosynthesizes more difficult.
The same apply to other gases and materials, mixed CO2 behaves differently from pure CO2 just like gold mixed with copper behaves differently from pure gold. Not really that complicate after all isn't?
So yeah, unsurprisingly, this isn't some big flaw in global warming that thousands of scientists studying the subject for years somehow failed to notice, it's a trivial piece of information that you could have googled yourself.
just to reinforce the point: collision between jiggling particles don't just keep air mixed. it keeps it floating. Without it not just CO2 but _all air_ would fall flat on the floor and life on earth would be gone.
Assuming the entire world was America, this argument might have some actual basis in reality. But considering most of us don't live the United States, and most of the 7 billion people on this earth are not scientifically minded and have no way to access science based ideas (How many kids in the slums of Calcutta are surfing the internet? How many countries have firewalls?) Even if the United States went completely solar and wind and battery driven cars, it would not change a thing. Of top 500 dirtiest cities in the world, not one resides in the United States.
what about cosmologist that deny climate change that say that the earth is heating up according to the fluctuations of the suns surface temperature?
+Aaron Sacks It doesn't matter what any scientist says. Only what he can provide evidence and solid argument for. The evidence that they present is so weak that it convinces almost no one.
+SarthorS I invite you too look at this Israeli physicists work. Nir Shaviv. His arguments are pretty compelling and the solar cycle variations graph is pretty spot on with earth's temperature over the last 30 years. Here is the graph:
he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA#/media/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
The Sun is currently in a period of cooling. 2014 was the hottest year on record. Your claim is debunked.
I don't know where you learned statistics but a point that strays from the trend of over 30 years, does not a fact disprove.....and it's not my claim it's the Nir Shaviv's and many other cosmoligst's claim en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv. And it does look reasonable. the graph from the comic rays overlaps the earth's temperature allot better than the predictions from co2 emissions. anyway I just wanted to ask a well know cosmologist like Mr. Tyson what he thought about it. That's all. It's not even my idea, a well known physics Nir Shaviv thought it up, proved it (as much as can be proved) and no one yet has successfully rebutted him.
co2 vs temp graph:
he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Co2-temperature-plot.png
solar cycle vs temp graph:
he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Solar-cycle-data.png
To me it looks like the solar cycle one fits allot better.
But I like it big, and when I take all of this into my heart and my mind, I am uplifted by it. And when I have that feeling, I want to know that it's real.
humbling and characterbuilding
Ken M is a notorious troll. Don't take him seriously.
Why make climate change a scary thing, it's normal and has occurred and reoccurred for quite sometime now.
The question is if we humans have a negative impact on this change? And how will it affect us?
"I say that all the time when I race my sail boats" RIP Bill
The panel of, "who can sound the smartest"
which shows exactly that they aren’t! What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Show us the graphs neil....the solar cycle graphs....the earth is cooling....
This panel is not communicating with each other
These guys are so proud of themselves.
They sure are cuz they’re super smart
Were is your proof???? Show us the proof...they cant cause if u saw the graphs u would clearly see the lies
ugh depressing... im glad im not the only one that can admit the world might actually be ending. People often say im exaggerating or flat out lieing.
well, that is a downer of a ending :(
Oh, that's what Chuck Nice looks like.
What ever happened to environmental awareness and sustainability?... what is all this vague climate change b.s. I know I am the odd man out here but the approach these guys have taken to explain their positions on climate change just doesn't seem rational, and rather sensationalistic. Comparing those who disagree with new and radical information to hardcore creationists is a good example of this sensationalism. I think they are authentically passionate because they are scared for the planet and our species, but that does not mean they are being sound in diverting almost all public attention away from established and needed environmental sustainability efforts. I personally care more about the pollution in all its horrible forms caused by cars in general and less about carbon specifically. How about our water and food supply? etc.
I can't believe I hadn't been subscribed to this channel before CinemaSins sent me here...
I like Tyson and Nye but please remove Chuck Nice :(
But he's there for comedic value and someone who is a Joe Schmoe for the listeners
not funny though :/
Show us the graphs neil!!!!!!$!
I'm religious but creationists are ignorant. I believe God created the earth because he created and set in motion all it is made of, along with the rest of the universe. A "day" is likely a figurative term meaning "A set interval of time". I also believe we humans have greater intelligence than animals and are therefore responsible for this planet and we are to keep it clean and in good order.
+CajBaj the White ... I wanted to ask, can God create a stone that is so hard that he is unable to destroy??
Lord Zephyros Haha, I don't think that the universe functions that way
+Lord Zephyros In Leviticus 6:9, it states "Who actually gives a fuck about the omnipotent paradox?"
yeah. a man of my stature. finnaly someone gets it.
Props
I do and many philosophers like myself. We tend to think a lot :)
I wish that I was standing there when these great people were talkiing :D
They did not address the issue of the lack of empirical evidence for the climate disaster theory. If you look at the list of references in any climate-alarmist study, they always cite computer-models which are not empirical evidence. Since the tipping point for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be proven to exist, then it has to be concluded that there is no problem (,because the amount of CO2 that humans put out is a fraction of what exist without our influence).
We r gonna reach a tipping point..the earth is cooling fast!!!
Looks like I need to get the fuck out of Miami now don't I...
Or get some scuba gear, and learn to communicate with fish.
Learn to swim, I'll see you all in Arizona Bay.
Big Boss denying climate change as they "Fret for their lattes"
Or take advantage of the lies and buy a beach front house, like Al Gore did.
I love you guys another great videooo
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
I absolutely adore Bill Nye! 😍💗
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Show them how co2 levels rise everytime we go into a solar minimum...show them neil...tell them the earth is trying its best to produce co2 to keep us from all freezing....u r an evil mann!!!
Just goes to show that religion is and always had, held science and world back.
+FallenShadowNinja "But religion does good things too!" Is what everyone says. LIES!
this is a scientist talk show but all these people are entertainment I guess the real scientist are not that entertaining
The Pacific northwest is FINALLY habitable.
No denying THAT! pshaw!...
That guy looks like a smart version of George Bush:p
Those Creationists seem to forget that the Chinese calendar is already over 6,000 years old. I guess we Asians and our Celestial Bureaucracy Pantheon of gods predate god. Trollolol.
He did say eminent😂
Everybody should watch this.
You guys lost - theres been and never will be global warming due to people
This is a straw man
Remove chuck
we are in serious trouble. undersea methane deposits are starting to release their contents to the surface. dumping methane in to the atmosphere. this is going to cause a positive feedback loop that is going to kill most life on earth. we may already be at that tipping point today.
+mak10z Don't forget the melting permafrost in Siberia that is also adding co2 and methane as melts and starts to root.
Grand solar minimum denier
It's so sad how Christians give up on the earth. As a person who believes strongly in both God and science, I would think it's our job as Christians to be blessings to the world. That means taking responsibility for the mess we've made of earth and doing our best to fix it, not twiddling our thumbs until Jesus comes.
+iCanHasNerdz Blame the Calvinists.
Why is Neil always wearing that white lab coat?
A plain white T-shirt is a lab coat?
+SpongeXtermiat0r94 shit my bad I thought you were talking about Nye, anyways Neil wears a jacket
+Bloody heart15 I hope this comment was sarcastic, cuz if not its just sad
Lol I like neil the grammar nazi! He did say emenant
Grrreattt
climate change who cares ..
i know right? is not like earth is the only habitat we humans hav...... oh wait
Your profile picture obviously did cause it left the planet.
+MulTiTuri your post who cares..
+brotalnia Baziiiing!
Chuck Nice, comedians don't dress that well. :)
They are all comedians!
*Fact : The current warming trend is not unprecented either by magnitude or rate. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Do you not expect temperature to rise during interglacials? Rising temperatures cause the oceans to release C02, which explains most of the increase of that gas in the atmosphere*
*The illusion of recent sharp increases in temperature and C02 is created by grafting accurate, high, resolution instrumental data (thermometer, satellite, etc) to lower resolution proxy data from reconstructions (ice core or tree ring). This "mike's nature trick" as the con men behind it refer to it as, has been exposed by climategate. Mike = Michael Mann, who with his team is responsible for the first hockey shtick graph.*
*Reconstructed data is long term and continuous but lacks accuracy. One problem with ice core data is that ice can take many centuries to fully seal off enclosed gas. During this time the gas is free to float around and rise up. This effectively averages out the gas composition, creating a mismatch between gas and ice at any level. Ice core and tree ring temperature data is fairly accurate. Ice core C02 however, is very inaccurate. Better methods of C02 measurement including plant stomata records, an indirect method, and old wet chemical measurements, direct highly accurate method second only to modern techniques, yield results with much better accuracy / resolution (though lack range). The propagandists know this, but still use lower quality ice core proxy data and graft it with better data to make it look like the sky is falling!*
*Key Points :*
*1) The current magnitude of warming has been met or matched by the medieval warming period, which was not a local event as propagandists claim.*
*2) The current rate of warming is the same as the 1910 - 1940 rate, during which C02 emissions were less than 1/4th of what they are today.*
*3) This rate is also roughly equal to the rate experienced when the climate was initially exiting the last ice age aka "the little ice age".*
*Again, why should temperature not be higher than it was during the last ice age?*
HISSSS
you thought you were safe but the reptilians will arise
What we have here is a wonderful echo chamber setup for ignorant ears.
I would like to see these two debating scientists like Lindzen, Dyson, Happer, Legates, Soon, Michaels, Giaever, Curry, Shaviv, Spencer, Christy, etc. I am sure that they will never dare to do so because they know that they‘ ll get their behinds kicked hard!!
Imagine Neil and Bill debating/owning the deniers lol.
Bill Nye sounds like a white Barack Obama
In 50 years rom now humanity will be mocking these guys for the BS they are spewing! They aren’t as smart as they think.
science
50 years or less for everyone to wake up imo
Alarmists were saying the same thing 50 years ago.
Well i guess im a alarmist
Megaman The Second
For the last 4000+ years, professional fearmongers have been real good at predicting when they are planning on retiring, but not much else.
dang im not a fan of retiring. just my luck
I'm so attracted to Bill Nye and absolutely adore him! 😍 💗