Had to check his CV. The "4 or 5 years teaching astronomy" was him operating a planetarium light show. When he was 13-17. "Teaching astronomy" was controlling a light panel and sound system.
I'm always amazed at the delivered and flagrant misinformation employed by climate change denial, or science denial in general. Climate change is real, vaccines work, and if only people would stop lying about it we might be able to make some more progress
Condescending and pretentious. I cannot take Billiam Whittle seriously, nor carry out a reasoned conversation with these type of personalities. Potholer54, don’t ever stop your channel.
I know, right? He's got a cold war podcast out, which may be the highest rated podcast. Regardless, normally I would be inclined to listen, but it is this guy, Bill Whittle! I can't do it. I just can't.
I find it amusing that people are calling you a "condescending British twit" when I literally cant think of any way to make a more polite disagreement of this guy. There was no sarcasm, no belittling, no insults, cursewords, I dont think Potholer even made a single joke (at Whittle's expense or otherwise) It's especially baffling considering how condescending Bill Whittle's tone is throughout this entire thing
@nickersongeneral - *"I find it amusing that people are calling you [condescending]..."* ph54 might protest but I do think this video is condescending. I also think Whittle deserves to be condescended to for the way he misrepresents the science and his own credentials. Listen to the last two minutes of the video again...
ok, fair enough, but that's hardly worth calling him a "condescending British twit", especially when it's coming from people trying to defend Whittle, someone who is clearly a much more condescending asshole. I mean, he makes one joke at the end implying Bill is a hypocrite, and suddenly that's OUTRAGEOUS! How dare he take such a tone to a guy who mockingly says things like "why that's almost a foot!" and "this chart goes back 1000 years. wow" constantly. It just stinks of people ONLY taking offense because potholer is saying things they disagree with.
@@NickersonGeneral *"It just stinks of people ONLY taking offense because potholer is saying things they disagree with."* Oh I completely agree. I just think Whittle deserves every bit of condescension...and then more. :D
I just like that ph54 just sticks with the truth. Not only is he not wasting his time with insults or demeaning humor, he isnt wasting my time either. I get around people like this and I dont even bother.
Well it doesn't have to be malicious anti science. It's just social media allow more people to make content themselves and we have people who may not understand what the scientific literature is saying and they make assumptions. Not defending that kind of action but I think it just tends to be more of the latter.
miller repin, it isn't malicious, but it's not simple ignorance either. There are a lot of people who are strongly motivated to disbelieve in climate change because it challenges their world view. Some examples are the business people who don't want to change their way of doing business; the libertarian/isolationist crowd, who don't want to admit there are problems we can't solve through the market or local/state/national government; and the deeply religious types, who think the world is exactly how God wants it to be, and isn't it about time for the Apocalypse anyway? It behooves us to push back on even the most casual denials and distortions of climate science.
woodworks1423 yes. you have to make your points clear or not at all with climate deniers. They give you "gotcha questions" when in reality climate scientists have worked these things out and understand these concepts in much greater detail than a layman who went on a bunch of blogs
woodworks1423: Yes, the Sahara region was once green and wet, and it will be again in about 15,000 years, due to variation in Earth's tilt. Natural cyclical changes like that are well understood, and not a source of worry. When we raise the alarm about climate change, we quite reasonably expect everyone to understand that we're talking about our own artificial contribution to it. And when someone enters the conversation claiming _not_ to understand that, we can't help but wonder about their honesty and/or intelligence.
You were kind to Whittle. He didn't say that the red bar "corresponded to the time of the hockey stick." He said it "corresponds to the LENGTH of the hockey stick." A trick of wording so he can say he's telling the truth, but it allowed him to ignore the period of warming we sit in the middle of.
There are Corrections as well as Attempts at Discussion by you on every single one of your videos I watched so far. You sir are a role modell for me as a student of science and should be for all young adults entering the world of science.Keep it up!
I love the whole "The temperature has all ways been changing" argument Taxi passenger 1: "Looks like the driver has floored the accelerator, has a crazed look in his eye, and is heading for that cliff" Taxi passenger 2: "Nothing to worry about, taxi drivers change speed and direction all the time"
+Danielsan B If only he had actually asked any qualified person any question on the topic before making his video he might have saved himself the embarrassment of being featured on this channel.
I get your sarcasm. But it's also funny that Whittle misuses Richard Alley's GISP2 analysis at around 5 minutes into the video, and Alley has this to say about those who misrepresent his analysis in the way Whittle does: "Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2 [...] So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response." Also interesting that, like you, the IPCC rightly notes it's nonsensical to say that global warming in the distant past means humans are not causing global warming now, just as it's nonsensical to say forest fires in the distant past means humans are not causing a particular forest fire now: "FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era? [...] These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. *The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.* FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change."
12:10 - I can't believe he poses a question for "you science guys" about something that is covered in highschool science. Is he stupid or just pushing a narrative?
When one has a defect in one's cognition, it is hardly likely to be apparent to one, is it? So he's stupid. _The guy that hired him_ was pushing the narrative. He probably had shares in the fuel industry, the value of which he wished to maintain.
I love how this channel absolute obliterates shit peddlers, and does it without drama. It’s probably been nearly a decade since I subscribed and it’s as good as ever, and hasn’t lost its integrity or soiled itself. It’s on another tier compared to any other debunk channel. No shouting, no whining, no trumpet blowing, just pure annihilation. Hadfield is the only reason I don’t hate all journalists.
You got hit on this video by a bunch of lunatics. One who proclaimed wine can't be grown in the UK today, but could a thousand years ago... but UK does have vineyards and their grape yields are growing, as well as the amount of vineyards being planted. Really, people aren't concerned about the climate in general.
Funny you mentioned that. The French had a law passed in the 13 hundreds that banned importation of English wines into france because they were better than theirs and plentifull. The french wine makers had to protect their market from a stiff competition. Btw. You cant grow good grapes in cold climate.
Meanwhile, the southern edge of the wine-growing region is also creeping north, causing what used to be some very distinctive wines to become unavailable.
There's a workaround way to annotate small corrections like this. Add a card to promote a video or playlist, pick any video you like, and add the correction as teaser text.
I didn't get past the first unsupported assertion that sea level rise is accelerating or is going to do so real soon. Tide gauge data that you can find here www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ Doesn't show acceleration. Yes rates are up from 1990 but they're about the same as they were in 1950. Here are some links to publications from Colorado University's sealevel.colorado.edu/ Sea Level Research Group: Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era? www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent? sealevel.colorado.edu/content/detection-accelerated-sea-level-rise-imminent NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas sealevel.colorado.edu/content/nasa-satellites-detect-pothole-road-higher-seas The titles tell the story, it's not happening. Obviously they want it to happen but it's not.
+Atomsk's Sanakan Got a problem with that? How about you actually try to address my argument instead of going against how we speak in my culture you racist.
I am always amused by climate-change deniers when they point out that earth was just as hot or just as choked with CO2 100 thousand or 100 million years ago. My first though when I hear that is "yes, but how did New York, London, Paris, or Beijing cope with those climate conditions back then?" And of course the answer is, they didn't. Because none of those cities existed. Neither were there any permanent human settlements, or even HUMANS in the case of 100 million years. Certainly 100 kya, there were a tiny fraction of human, or protohuman, population compared to today. To whatever extent our ancestor species existed, they would either move around to find better conditions or die in the attempt. If the sea rose 50 meters over the course of 10000 years, whatever life was around would adapt or die. Today, we have an entirely different situation. One, we have nowhere to move TO where there aren't already humans, and those other humans will fight tooth and nail to keep their own territory. Two, we have concrete and steel cities, with permanent roads and other infrastructure which cannot be moved, certainly if the sea level rises as quickly as it seems to be doing, or the global temperature starts becoming life-threatening. Third, the rise in global temperatures has been clearly show to be caused by the nearly 8 BILLION people on the planet, all burning carbon in engines and factories and other wasteful practices. The Earth is pretty good at taking care of naturally-produced CO2, it just has no way to cope with the excess we're pouring into the atmosphere every minute. Like cigarette smoking in the past, we've know that our addiction to carbon emissions will kill us... someday. Well that day is coming sooner than we like and we need to kick the habit now if we want to have a healthy planet. And unlike our predecessors, we don't have 10000 years to do it.
@@christopherton I assume "way back when" means millions of years ago. In those cases CO2 levels were driven by cataclysmic volcanic activity over thousands of years. Today, scientists can sample the air and can tell the difference between CO2 from natural causes and human-generated CO2 and today's CO2 levels are almost entirely driven by human activity over the past 50-100 years -- a far cry from the ancient geologic causes. A very little amount of Googling will tell you this in much more detail if you are actually interested in the answer.
@@sfperalta there are plenty of other natural causes of co2 emissions today Zero emissions or zero net is IMPOSSIBLE. If we are producing more oil and gas than ever in this country and we have all these wind mills , solar panels and EVs on the road what does that tell you. Besides , according to super climatologist AOC we’ve got like 6 more years to live. Might as well party until the end
potholer54: I summarized this video of yours to the best of my ability, then posted my summary in the comment section of Whittle's video. I hope I have your permission.
Honestly dude you're doing such a service for the internet by uploading these videos you have no idea. Thanks a lot! Including the effort you made in the description, wow. If you had a Patreon I would gladly donate.
As a fan of both you and Bill Whittle, I appreciate that you are able to present 'the rest of the story' without the vitriol and condescension that is currently plaguing our partisan culture; it makes it easier to swallow, and works to avoid the initial recoil that would more frequently turn away the very people who need to hear it. This is a terrific response; nice work.
+Cary Snowden *"AAs a fan of both you and Bill Whittle, I appreciate that you are able to present 'the rest of the story' without the vitriol and condescension that is currently plaguing our partisan culture; it makes it easier to swallow, and works to avoid the initial recoil that would more frequently turn away the very people who need to hear it."* 1) Why are you a fan of Bill Whittle? He doesn't have much of merit to say, as far as I can tell. 2) Why is tone relevant to the substance of what someone says? For example, why should vitriol and condescension prevent *rational* people from seeing someone is right? tone =/= content
I am a fan of Bill Whittle because he presents cogent conservative and libertarian viewpoints in an amicable forum. I think he is worth listening to. I find Potholer54 to be of similar keel and also very much worth listening to. The two are at times polarized, but offer listenable arguments that help inform a more complete comprehension from differing perspectives. As for the importance of tone: vitriol and condescension are the footholds of ad hominem and don't belong in a rational conversation. You are correct to point out that they are irrelevant to the substance, but more often than not it is the delivery that makes or breaks the success of a communication. Note that I am not talking about the strength of an argument, which of course can stand on its own; it is the tone of the delivery that can offend or put off a listener, and thus becomes an important device in communication, education, and ultimately acceptance. For instance, had Potholer54 begun his response with "Hey Bill, you dumb f-ing pompous idiot..." I would have immediately clicked "next" fully convinced that the response was nothing more than a vicious partisan rant. Instead, Potholer54's response is presented in a lucid and straightforward manner that lends to it's credibility, and works to avoid tainting the evidence with apparent bias. Honestly, I'd like to see more rational thought presented in this manner. Too often I am ready to 'share' a great argument about science or religion, but cannot because I am certain the intended audience would immediately be offended by language or positioning, and thus reject the message out of hand.
+Cary Snowden *"I am a fan of Bill Whittle because he presents cogent conservative and libertarian viewpoints in an amicable forum. It think he is worth listening to."* What cogent points has he made? I scanned his video playlist, and seen little-to-nothing of merit. Just the usual, easily-debunked, unsophisticated conservative talking points. *"As for the importance of tone: vitriol and condescension are the footholds of ad hominem and don't belong in a rational conversation. [...] ; it is the tone of the delivery that can offend or put off a listener, and thus becomes an important device in communication, education, and ultimately acceptance."* Not really. An ad hominem would be attacking the person and using that to show the person is wrong. For example: saying someone is wrong, because they're vitriolic and condescending. One can be vitriolic and condescending without using that using that as evidence someone is wrong. If anything, I often find vitriol and condenscension to be interesting; that's part of why I like CoolHardLogic. He's clearly a jerk to flat-earthers, geocentrists, etc. But he's a *brilliant, informed* jerk, so he's worth listening to. In any event, I think it's childish and irrational for someone to use tone as a reason for why they won't accept what someone says. It's like a child claiming they won't listen to what their doctor says on medicine, because their doctor is a "meanie". Tone is not a excuse for ignoring substance. *"For instance, had Potholer54 begun his response with "Hey Bill, you dumb f-ing pompous idiot..." I would have immediately clicked "next" fully convinced that the response was nothing more than a vicious partisan rant."* And there-in lies the problem. If I'd seen potholer54 do that, then I still would have listened to the video, to see if he had anything of substance to say. If anything, his negative tone would make me want to engage him, if he was wrong. When you avoid every vitriolic person, you're bound to close yourself off to useful information. That's what I fundamentally don't get about people like you: why does someone's tone prevent you from listening? I don't mean that as an insult to you. Maybe people like you just have a psychological make-up that differs from people like me.
As a fan of these political commentators, I have to respect the length to which potholer uses reason and respect in dealing with the facts and hype. PragerU next? That just might make me a full convert.
About all of them. What video's do you think aren't misleading? Then I will try to show you how they are misleading. ;) (keep in mind, I'm not as good as potholer)
Conclusion, “It’s about the fundamental integrity of science being weaponized into politics,” said the ever politically charged Bill Whittle. How did the irony of this statement not crush his skull...one wonders? But, I could not agree more with that critical insight into the social discourse we constantly hear concerning climate change and what we should do about it. How can we parse out those using it as a weapon for their political gain? Thanks Potholer54 for your continued enlightenment!
In my 70's and I can't point to a past time when hypocrisy was so rampant, the lies so flagrant, and the resistance to it all so vacant. It is no wonder we find ourselves in our current state of affairs. Whatever happens to humanity, we shall have earned it by our own labors. Extinction included.
I saw a video of this guy once complaining about a sign that read "Once you poison every river and cut down every tree, you will learn that you can't eat money." His reply was "I will just go to the store and buy more food!" completely missing the point of the message.
Potholer is completely correct about the Science, he is exceptionally wrong about the Politics. We are our government. The Driver behind fixing this will almost certainly have Politics involved even if Big Business decides our future is more important than their present at some point. So at the end watching Potholer throw vagaries out implying the Left and the Right are both wrong for misrepresenting Science, he is practicing false equivalence by leaving the viewer to think both sides practice it at the same amount. It is important in that moment to inform the viewer that the Right misrepresents Science far more than the Left, by a staggering amount actually. The Right has taken it so far they must be called out politically to fix things. Potholer, thanks so much for your videos and I mean that. They are incredibly informative, even to those of us that follow the issues. I hope you'll take this correction in stride if you find it credible and help us support the party that understands Anthropomorphic Climate Change to be true going forward. Love ya buddy!
Not sure about the right being more wrong than the left, but I guess depends on what you mean. There is a lot of misinformation coming from both sides. Are we talking about extremes here? The general message coming from the right is denial - nothing happening. That's packaged in many different ways but it boils down to "nothing to be alarmed about". The reality is that over the next 80 years, sea level could be 1m higher and temp warmer by a degree or two. This doesn't seem too extreme if we think about speed of change on human time scales I.e. it wouldn't be particularly noticeable. The left by comparison are telling us cities are going under water, there will be mass extinctions, the planet is dying etc. They're also claiming that almost every natural disaster is due to climate change... fires, floods, storms, heatwaves, tornados, droughts and they're using this as political leverage. Way over the top stuff. They're even prepared to destroy modern democratic capitalist societies as part of their solution. The left claim to have science on their side but the misrepresentation of the facts is as massive as anything on the right. Just my observation. Could be wrong.
@@toby9999 I was not ambiguous at all. The Right in this country overwhelmingly thrives on less education, the dumbing down of existing education, dilution of Science, discrediting of Science, and obfuscation of all fields of study to make its arguments and pass new policy and retain existing policy it champions. The Left does not even come close and seems to embrace the opinion and study of people IN RELEVANT FIELDS OF STUDY instead of counting on some Twitter Personalities and a couple of Climate Deniers with a BoS in Economics (of all things) to make their case. It's embarrassing to know that we have a faction in this country that plays on America's dumbest and wins America's dumbest. You repeated the same point Potholer did, "they both do it." That is False Equivalence. OK, sure, both Day Old Rice AND Dog Shit stink! But If you had to put your nose in one or the other I bet you'd pick one predictably and quick!
@@Phaleel *"Anthropomorphic Climate Change"* - You might want to edit that bit; you mean anthropogenic, but your phone my have autocorrected to "anthropomorphic".
It's not a phase mom it's funny how environmentalists are the only ones that are actually monetarised in the whole scheme yet people believe the propaganda of the left even though the left invented and systematised propaganda. Read history and don't go for the bait of the leftish political agenda. I hope you all live for aother 50 years when all this BS about AGW is debunked for good. But you'll still forget!
Propaganda has a history going all the way back to the Roman empire and probably earlier. How is it something the left invented? Talking about left vs right makes no sense before modern times. Unless you somehow think the Romans were leftwing?
+CROM It's funny how deniers are the ones who benefit the MOST from keeping the status quo of burning fossil fuels and an easy lifestyle of luxury caused by FF addiction, no matter how much harm that forces upon the poor nations who create the LEAST CO2, so deniers are the ones with the BIGGEST FINANCIAL BIASSES, and who COLLECT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN WELFARE, yet they attack solar & wind farm advocates and electric car advocates.
Wow thumbs up. I rarely see a youtube video that shows actuall peer reviewed papers. I adore that, especially because i used many of the ones shown here and many graphs aswell in my thesis this year.
Just a slight error in your manuscript on this one: You state that: "during the late cretaceous, CO2 levels were about 1000 ppm, compared to 400.000.000 today." Obviously, you meant to say 400ppm, so it's not a critical error, just a slight slip-up, you might want to add a note on. Timestamp: 3:30
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that, and I think you are the first person to spot it. Unfortunately RUclips dos't allow annotations any more, so I've added a correction in the video description.
I was a bit skeptical of climate change after seeing some Crowder videos, you've basically destroyed every one of their arguments in a very objective, and even entertaining, way. Thank you for your service, we need more people being skeptical about the skeptics. EDIT: people, skeptic =/= person with good reasoning. This is the definition: "a person inclined to question or doubt *accepted* opinions." Climate change is largely accepted as a correct theory, Crowder doubts this theory, thus he is a skeptic. That's the only thing I was saying.
"we need more people being skeptical about the skeptics." I'm normally for people being allowed to identify themselves how they want, yet with climate change 'skeptics' the skeptic part doesn't mean much. It'd be like someone is a gravity 'skeptic' and you show him a pen dropping and they just go 'it didn't drop, here's a graph where the pen goes up'.
Climate scientist and politician seem to be the two profession every keyboard warrior thinks they're better at than people who devote time and energy in study and practice. Maybe football referee should be added in as well.
Remember how Doctors told us that smoking does not cause cancer ……. there are always some who want access to the petro-chem dollars. But the vast Majority of scientists are genuine.
Same applies to peer review journals and study grants. Yes, the vast majority of scientists are genuine - they continue to be skeptical of their own results - but not the vast majority of climate scientists, who don't and in fact won't even acknowledge the shortcomings in the computer models that when given actual historical measured data do not reproduce current climate conditions. AGW is simply politicised "science".
@@TonyRule …… I read your comments, and I asked you a question, why do you think climate change scientists are less credible than other scientists. Its is very simple, do you have a reason to believe as you do?
Is ESTIMATED to take thousands of years. But, the estimated rate of Greenland ice sheet melt has been adjusted upward several times now and is 6X greater than it was just 30 years ago. Any guesses about what the next adjustment might be? Think it will be greater? What do you think the adjustment of the estimates for Antarctica might possibly be? Given that there are dozens of positive feedbacks that are kicking in.
I'm really glad I found this channel, there was a point where I was entirely uncertain about climate change but this channel has helped me find the right direction. Thanks
0:18 projection for sea rise 1:52 response to Bill Nye's poor video 2:57 CO2 was higher in the past 4:47 response to fake graph of temperatures 10:24 response to "climate always changes" 12:13 why CO2 changes with time 14:17 why did CO2 get to 2.5x current levels 16:21 responses to predicted arguments 16:53 science being weaponised and regarding Whittle's video 17:33 Whittle's mistakes
Aj Meyers M8 do you really think that the 40% of Republican voters who get their news from Fox would ever be willing to cooperate with the left? They probably think that the Democrats are led by the anti-christ and the world is 6000 years old. That's not a gap we can really bridge because they're denying reality.
1:23 Stefan Rahmstorf is one of the most respected experts on the subject. He and his reasearch got me all interested in Geophysics and Ozeanography, in fact. But after seeing all the backlash he receives from the public and politicians alike... No, that might not be for me. So I studied computer science instead. If you are into climate scince you must be able to handle the hate, even if it isn't really hate. Rahmstorf explaned that people just don't want to be told that they are doing something wrong. That sort of attitude might well be our demise.
potholer54 You are a patient man. It must be frustrating to see such idiotic statements in the comment section after you've just explained the reasons why
Way too few people talk about HOW climate change did occur naturally in the past. They just keep saying "it has changed before" and leave it at that as if it's a gotcha argument. Little do they realize that natural climate change has always come about through a rise of CO2 levels and we are in the process of artificially recreating the atmospheric conditions that existed MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO over the course of merely a few DECADES.
Deniers surely don't. I'd say science educators might want to do more explaining of climate change where they explain the past of the planet. (Which I think was the intention of Bill Nye) How the climate on earth (and other planets) changed and what the effects of that were, is all important to know. People who don't know that, can't be expected to understand climate change in face of so many deniers being popular. For example the idiot in the video brings up how the climate has changed since 4.5billion years ago, but doesn't explain what the effects of that change were. He doesn't show an estimation of what the earth would have looked like 4.5billion years ago. I'm not an expert on the exact amounts, but it was a climate that doesn't support human life. Thus 'it always changed' becomes an argument if we keep out whether humans can live. Scientists can call earth's climate change catastrophic, while they don't do so for the climate changes on Saturn.
I haven't seen an explanation for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval, Roman, or Minoan warm periods. They are well documented in the historical and proxy records as both significant and global.
Thank you so much for making this video. I'm s conservative and I came into this thinking it would be some leftist freaking out about climate change. The way you addressed this is the best and most professional I've ever seen. Critiques on politically motivated videos etc. Are always healthy. P.s. I thought it was funny that he used a graph from Greenland to show as "world temps." I didn't notice when bbn I saw the original video. LOL
Conservatives should be freaking out over climate change. Conservatives by definition abhor change. Younare one of the rare conservatives who is open minded. Political psychology and empirical social psychology shows that conservatives are less open minded than more liberal people. They also engage more in motivated thinking, or wishful thinking. So this explains why many, but not you, tend to be science and climate change deniars. Fortunately, over 70% of US citizens consider climate change and man made climate change to be a real and pressing problem.
@Love Power Movement -- in order to give other people room on this forum, I'll collect all your comments and put them here, in one post. That way people can still read them if they are interested in your thoughts. In the meantime, why not respond to the people who have challenged some of your claims in the threads you already started? Anyway, here is your latest: "Love power Movement 2 hours ago: Lets not argue about who studied science or is published. That’s all bullshit. Show me your climate model that accurately predicts the climate? You can’t because you don’t have one. Show man" I have shown these in two videos: "The consequences of global warming (in our lifetimes") and "Response to 'The global warming hoax Lord Monckton and Stefan Molyneux.'"
Prinz Vidar lol same. Me and my old man keep having this argument, him saying al gore started this craze for profit and that climate scientists only use the info that suits them.... it's frustrating.
Ask him what he'll accept as a source, as long as it's a science based source. Will any of the basic science magazines be acceptable sources? But if he's just decided that no science source will work, then there isn't really any point. Does he take medication? Ask him what he does when he needs to see if the medication will interact with other medications. Does he rely on informed sources and published research? Does he ask his doctor? Would he trust his friend's non professional opinion on the health consequences of taking certain medications? I might also consider calling up your local university. Personally, I try like hell to not have any discussions of any importance with my dad, but that's just because of the history of our relationship. Hopefully, yours is better and more cordial.
MrOttopants Its usually pretty cordial lol The problem is, while I point out that one side is using partial information (antarctic glacial increase vs net global decrease) or twisted info, he refuses to believe that and claims that each side interprets to their narrative. We also argue the viability of energy replacement (wind, solar, etc.). To be fair, he's not against the move to clean energy, he just believes our climate isn't being impacted by us and our current tech can't viably replace fossil fuels
Good. Well, good luck with talking to him. Climate is the only thing my dad isn't totally crazy about, so I could probably mention it, but I don't try.
+Potholer54, I found two errors in this video, or rather one error repeated twice. At 13:06 and 19:40 you assert that you are a "complete dunce". There is no evidence to support this and much evidence to the contrary.
Yeah. That was bugging me too. I have a PhD in chemistry, and I know a thing or two about science, but climate science is not my field and I don't feel remotely competent to do the sort of debunking that potholer does. I think he is not even close to being a dunce. On the contrary, I think he is much smarter than the idiots he is forced to debunk.
@@GordoGambler I'm not going to bother with everything you wrote, but could you please cite your source on your first statement, i.e. that arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012? Peer-reviewed of course. Thank you!
"I taught astronomy for 20 years" "At age 13, he began working at the Miami Space Transit Planetarium[5] and was made a console operator by its director Jack Horkheimer after a few months.[6] As a teenager, sometimes called "The Wizard" by co-workers, he wrote and directed the planetarium's light shows." That claim is just sad.
These are great videos to teach science, not just climate science. The best and most important RUclips channel, a great service. You have so much patience.
Potholer, I gotta say that your calm, non-personal and "just the facts" approach to these debunks/discussions is constantly impressive, and something that I aim to emulate (not always successfully) in my own discussions with people holding different points of view. Thank you for continuing to make these.
Amazing work as always. I would have been stumped with that greenland graph which was incredibly misleading. The fact that you snooped around enough to figure out and calculate the correct time scale is above and beyond.
Anyone who doesn't think dumping billions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful, shouldn't mind being trapped in a sealed room, which is slowly filled with said gas...
Nye talking about the maximum possible sea level rise is a valuable point of reference. As you said in another video, self-proclaimed climate change "sceptics" like to make the faulty argument that "a small increase in CO2 can't have such a big effect". But knowing that the maximum possible sea level rise is 70 meter indicates that 1-2 m (3-6 ft) is not actually all that big on the absolute scale. There is also the fact that climate change is a debate about the future even beyond our lifetimes, that many people perceive it as a responsibility for the planet and humanity. It's true that it would have been useful if Nye would have mentioned the actually expected scope, but teaching the full scope is not wrong or even necessarily manipulative.
Agreed. Potholer said that Whittle did the same thing Nye did, but that's not accurate. Nye, at worst, exaggerated the issue, making it seem like massive changes would happen sooner than the thousand year prediction. Not saying he did necessarily do that, but I can see that as being a not completely unreasonable perception. Whittle, on the other hand, left out a lot of science and used misleading graphs in order to say that the warming we're experiencing is just part of a cycle. In other words, no cause for alarm, nothing we can do about it, just go about doing what we've been doing. That is a huge difference. If someone is bleeding and you think they'll die unless they get medical attention in 10 minutes when it's actually 30 minutes, the unnecessary haste might cause mistakes, but barring any fatal mistakes, it could help save the person's life. On the other hand, if you just say the person will be fine and we don't need to do anything, then the person will die of bloodloss. One might cause problems, the other will cause problems.
9:11 There is a comparison between two charts. What is the difference between "Air Temperature (Deg C)" and "Temperature Anomaly (C)"? Is there a difference? Interesting stuff either way.
"Air temperature" is an absolute value. A temperature anomaly shows the difference between air temperature and the average air temperature over a given period of time.
Linear thinking a result of mentation in one dimension. They get velocity (sort of) but are totally mesmerized when presented with the concept of acceleration. Then there's complexity and chaos leaving them stupefied to the core.
I'm really quite baffled as to why people dispute man-made climate change. It is a fact that there are greenhouse gases and it is a fact that we are putting millions of tons into the air. What else do they need?
Remember, these are the people who opposed removing lead from gasoline because of profit. The same who funded studies that show cigarettes improve health. It's funny to hear one NOW claim that science is being weaponized against them. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.
Being mad that science is being weaponized for politics is interesting. Empirical observations from the 1st of September 1939 led the British and French to believe that Germany had invaded Poland resulting in declaration of war. How dare these people weaponize empirical observations for their politics.
Consider It Done Please define what that article is 'advocating for paedophilia'. What does the article want to be done with paedophilia? I'm entirely confused why your link isn't the direct article, but the twitter page.
+Consider It Done *"Sure dude, and using your logic, 'you people' are the ones advocating for paedophilia."* What? Do you mean Milo Yiannopoulos? Because despite Milo's comments on pedophilia, he does not accept the evidence-based scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
That is what concerns me about science popularizers like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, their mindset is generally positive and they mean to do well, but they appear on tv and radio a lot, and any mistake they make is seized upon by critics and used to discredit the name of science itself.
Bill Nye should stay out of climate science tbh. He's not qualified to handle the complexities of the field. I've seen him in several discussions with deniers and he usually does a very bad job in my opinion. He's not able to answer the usual conservative criticisms of the IPCC-studies for example.
stemkb It's actually a really common tactic of the denial machine to single out scientists or communicators, make it sound like the entirety of climate science rests on their work, and then attack them viciously so that people think they are debunking climate science. Bill Nye is a fairly popular target. Just think of how many "skeptics" made videos calling him a fraud or a fake. Al Gore is a massive target. It's hard to actually get through a conversation about climate science without someone saying "but Al Gore was wrong!!!!" The most common of all though are the scientists who created the hockey stick graph: Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. The graph has been the target of so many attacks that plenty of people just take it as a given that's it's fraudulent or "broken" or something like that. For example, in some answer Ben Shapiro gave to a question about climate change, his response essentially started off: I'm not a climate scientist but I do know a few things like how the hockey stick is broken. You can see it in this video too. Whittle blatantly lied and claimed that all climate science is based off the hockey stick. It's a worrying state of scientific knowledge.
Would you rather no one talk about it and the public be generally uninformed? While it brings issues for certain, I would say that it is overall better that more people are aware.
Thomas Chadman It happens very often with any group really. If you want to attack a group just find someone from that group who is at least semi-famous who maybe made a slip up and said something dumb and then present them as the mainstream. It's not hard, especially with the internet you can easily find a channel with a few thousand subscribers or footage of some lecture or an interview. Hell you can probably find someone really famous making a mistake but from a few years ago.
Tbh I think a lot of the time they are very aware they are making mistakes but they do it anyways because it may be better for the style or delivering the message. Like how they never make citations in their shows because it would just ruin the flow. It's just like how BBC's Planet Earth doesn't pause every beautiful nature shot to cite all the research about animal behavior backing up what they're saying. I think specifically in this case with Nye he was very aware that the rising sea level wasn't a major threat. But his goal is more to make sure that people are concerned about climate change. He's hoping to make people look into it more themselves and discover the more immediate threats. The only problems with them is that they can be somewhat abstract or not very close by. Like ocean acidification sounds very technical to someone who isn't really sure what an acid is but hopefully they'll educate themselves about the issue.
Do these people know they're lying or do we think their biases simply allow them to grab whatever 'evidence' seems appropriate whilst at the same time feeling that they are, in actual fact, telling the 'truth'. It baffles the hell out of me.
they are knowingly lying. maybe they genuinly believe that scientists are exaggerateing the dangers of manmade climate change, and some activists do, then in their minds they are fighting fire with fire. i think they also tend to have financial reasons for misrepresenting and lying and muddying the waters.
Potholer - I tried your technique of arguing the facts with a skeptic who has a small enough channel to respond to comments. He responded to some of my questions about "where in the peer-reviewed literature does it state that - ". He kept just posting links to blogs and newspaper articles and then decided that "The peer-review literature is just a circle-jerk in an echo-chamber...". The guy thinks the entire scientific method is bunkum. I must admit that I had to give up for my own sanity.
I think the most important thing is that you showed everyone else that he was not telling them the truth. You don't have to convince him you just have to show everyone that he isn't right.
Had to check his CV. The "4 or 5 years teaching astronomy" was him operating a planetarium light show. When he was 13-17. "Teaching astronomy" was controlling a light panel and sound system.
which is why he knows "a little bit" about science :D
John Smith
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He definitely should put 'sprucing up a CV' as one of his skills, on his CV.
I'm always amazed at the delivered and flagrant misinformation employed by climate change denial, or science denial in general. Climate change is real, vaccines work, and if only people would stop lying about it we might be able to make some more progress
But that's unprofitable.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Maybe for the individual in the short term but for society in the long run it absolutely is profitable to accept science.
@@RanEncounter but the CEO will have sold his business before the unprofit happens
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Well yes. What part of this goes against my comment?,
Condescending and pretentious.
I cannot take Billiam Whittle seriously, nor carry out a reasoned conversation with these type of personalities.
Potholer54, don’t ever stop your channel.
I know, right? He's got a cold war podcast out, which may be the highest rated podcast. Regardless, normally I would be inclined to listen, but it is this guy, Bill Whittle! I can't do it. I just can't.
I find it amusing that people are calling you a "condescending British twit" when I literally cant think of any way to make a more polite disagreement of this guy. There was no sarcasm, no belittling, no insults, cursewords, I dont think Potholer even made a single joke (at Whittle's expense or otherwise)
It's especially baffling considering how condescending Bill Whittle's tone is throughout this entire thing
@nickersongeneral - *"I find it amusing that people are calling you [condescending]..."*
ph54 might protest but I do think this video is condescending. I also think Whittle deserves to be condescended to for the way he misrepresents the science and his own credentials. Listen to the last two minutes of the video again...
ok, fair enough, but that's hardly worth calling him a "condescending British twit", especially when it's coming from people trying to defend Whittle, someone who is clearly a much more condescending asshole.
I mean, he makes one joke at the end implying Bill is a hypocrite, and suddenly that's OUTRAGEOUS! How dare he take such a tone to a guy who mockingly says things like "why that's almost a foot!" and "this chart goes back 1000 years. wow" constantly.
It just stinks of people ONLY taking offense because potholer is saying things they disagree with.
@@NickersonGeneral *"It just stinks of people ONLY taking offense because potholer is saying things they disagree with."*
Oh I completely agree. I just think Whittle deserves every bit of condescension...and then more. :D
I just like that ph54 just sticks with the truth. Not only is he not wasting his time with insults or demeaning humor, he isnt wasting my time either.
I get around people like this and I dont even bother.
I'm so happy youre doing videos more often
bigwillchill it's actually quite chilling, because this means that there's a resurgence in anti science garbage on the web
Well it doesn't have to be malicious anti science. It's just social media allow more people to make content themselves and we have people who may not understand what the scientific literature is saying and they make assumptions. Not defending that kind of action but I think it just tends to be more of the latter.
miller repin, it isn't malicious, but it's not simple ignorance either. There are a lot of people who are strongly motivated to disbelieve in climate change because it challenges their world view. Some examples are the business people who don't want to change their way of doing business; the libertarian/isolationist crowd, who don't want to admit there are problems we can't solve through the market or local/state/national government; and the deeply religious types, who think the world is exactly how God wants it to be, and isn't it about time for the Apocalypse anyway? It behooves us to push back on even the most casual denials and distortions of climate science.
woodworks1423 yes. you have to make your points clear or not at all with climate deniers. They give you "gotcha questions" when in reality climate scientists have worked these things out and understand these concepts in much greater detail than a layman who went on a bunch of blogs
woodworks1423: Yes, the Sahara region was once green and wet, and it will be again in about 15,000 years, due to variation in Earth's tilt. Natural cyclical changes like that are well understood, and not a source of worry. When we raise the alarm about climate change, we quite reasonably expect everyone to understand that we're talking about our own artificial contribution to it. And when someone enters the conversation claiming _not_ to understand that, we can't help but wonder about their honesty and/or intelligence.
Sure this chap is wrong but he should still be applauded for accepting that earth's history extends back more than 5000 years.
Indeed! So brave!
He should be applauded for being a lying hypocrite instead of an insane lying hypocrite? :p
it is sad to realise that that should even need to be a thing..
+B. Hagedash - That's a reaaaaaally low bar, but ok, I'll give him a 👏
Edit: Just one tho! No need to be greedy
Should he?
You were kind to Whittle. He didn't say that the red bar "corresponded to the time of the hockey stick." He said it "corresponds to the LENGTH of the hockey stick." A trick of wording so he can say he's telling the truth, but it allowed him to ignore the period of warming we sit in the middle of.
The phrase "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" seems to sum up Bill Whittle's presentation....
Yes ….. and it applies to some here too.
There are Corrections as well as Attempts at Discussion by you on every single one of your videos I watched so far. You sir are a role modell for me as a student of science and should be for all young adults entering the world of science.Keep it up!
Glad to see potholers videos still getting traffic a year later. Hope everyone watching this will watch his other videos.
Whoever his video sadly get not really much Traffic. Other videos get multiple million views without any research or intelectual added value
I spotted this one then binge watched ( almost) his whole back catalogue. The guys a legend.
I love the whole "The temperature has all ways been changing" argument
Taxi passenger 1: "Looks like the driver has floored the accelerator, has a crazed look in his eye, and is heading for that cliff"
Taxi passenger 2: "Nothing to worry about, taxi drivers change speed and direction all the time"
hahahahahahaha
i m dead :PPP
Can I steal that one?
HUH??
WHEN??
My international relations professor literally made that argument in class. I know it might have hurt my grade, but I wish now that I said something.
Only recently discovered this channel. Love it. Some videos years old but still excellent educational and hilarious
5:39 climate “skeptics” today are still pushing the same out of context graph
ugh
Good wrap-up. Wise old saying: "Loudly doth the guilty accuse."
Again, we are not the brightest bulbs here in America...
I’m from the UK.
We are not that bright either.
Whittle lost all credibility (that he didn't have anyway) at "Here's a question for all you science guys".
+Danielsan B
If only he had actually asked any qualified person any question on the topic before making his video he might have saved himself the embarrassment of being featured on this channel.
What question?
I never know if these climate change deniers are misinformed or if they are blatantly lying to your face. Either way, i dislike them a lot
Chill dude, just because you are wrong and every scientist in the field disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to go off like that.
@Bill Randall just potholers videos on climate change and put your MAGA away for a bit
10:00 climate has always been changing so why worry? Richard Alley points out that there have always been fires so why should we try to prevent arson?
I get your sarcasm. But it's also funny that Whittle misuses Richard Alley's GISP2 analysis at around 5 minutes into the video, and Alley has this to say about those who misrepresent his analysis in the way Whittle does:
"Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2
[...]
So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response."
Also interesting that, like you, the IPCC rightly notes it's nonsensical to say that global warming in the distant past means humans are not causing global warming now, just as it's nonsensical to say forest fires in the distant past means humans are not causing a particular forest fire now:
"FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?
[...]
These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. *The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.* FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change."
“Never confuse education with intelligence. You can have a PhD, and still be an idiot.”
- Richard Feynman -
You must hv at least 3 PhDs
12:10 - I can't believe he poses a question for "you science guys" about something that is covered in highschool science. Is he stupid or just pushing a narrative?
"Is he stupid or just pushing a narrative?" - yes. :)
When one has a defect in one's cognition, it is hardly likely to be apparent to one, is it? So he's stupid.
_The guy that hired him_ was pushing the narrative. He probably had shares in the fuel industry, the value of which he wished to maintain.
I love how this channel absolute obliterates shit peddlers, and does it without drama. It’s probably been nearly a decade since I subscribed and it’s as good as ever, and hasn’t lost its integrity or soiled itself.
It’s on another tier compared to any other debunk channel. No shouting, no whining, no trumpet blowing, just pure annihilation.
Hadfield is the only reason I don’t hate all journalists.
@@EeekiE come on. You love to eat shit
Don't stop. Your videos are accessible to lay people and can help sway understanding of the validity of science in countering the drivel. Well done.
You got hit on this video by a bunch of lunatics. One who proclaimed wine can't be grown in the UK today, but could a thousand years ago... but UK does have vineyards and their grape yields are growing, as well as the amount of vineyards being planted.
Really, people aren't concerned about the climate in general.
Funny you mentioned that. The French had a law passed in the 13 hundreds that banned importation of English wines into france because they were better than theirs and plentifull. The french wine makers had to protect their market from a stiff competition. Btw. You cant grow good grapes in cold climate.
Meanwhile, the southern edge of the wine-growing region is also creeping north, causing what used to be some very distinctive wines to become unavailable.
Whittle probably worked as a janitor in science labs.
Potholer's at it again, thank you for still putting up content!
5:06 Correction: That paper said 1896 as the publication date, not 1894.
Thanks for the correction. RUclips no longer allows annotations so I'll put that in the video description.
There's a workaround way to annotate small corrections like this. Add a card to promote a video or playlist, pick any video you like, and add the correction as teaser text.
let's be frank though, this is somewhat irrelevant to the argument, isn't it? But I applaud your keen eye for details.
That mistake sure made me lose faith in science for ever
Fun at parties, you are, I'm sure.
Absolutely fabulous! Potholer54 continues to produce some of the best science content on RUclips.
couldn't but agree.
nice to see you around here also
+John Black
So, do you have an actual reply to what he said or are you just going to parrot "pseudoscience" like a complete dumbass?
+John Black,
Right, but my question was whether or not you actually have anything to back up you calling it "pseudoscience"?
John Black: ad hominems: 100; logic (none shown)
I didn't get past the first unsupported assertion that sea level rise is accelerating or is going to do so real soon.
Tide gauge data that you can find here
www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
Doesn't show acceleration. Yes rates are up from 1990 but they're about the same as they were in 1950.
Here are some links to publications from Colorado University's
sealevel.colorado.edu/
Sea Level Research Group:
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf
Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
sealevel.colorado.edu/content/detection-accelerated-sea-level-rise-imminent
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
sealevel.colorado.edu/content/nasa-satellites-detect-pothole-road-higher-seas
The titles tell the story, it's not happening. Obviously they want it to happen but it's not.
Yes, the climate is always changing.
And humans are always going to die.
But it doesn't mean it's a good idea to kick it off early, does it?
@Urrcreavesh Not sure how that's going to help. Can you explain?
People complain about your voice? People are weird.
I can't imagine. I've always found his voice sexy.
Some people think he's faking it to sound intelligent. How insecure is that?
No that guy Kraut and T fakes an atrocious accent to sound intelligent just like Gorka. Two execrable right wing dunces.
If he's faking, he's doing a rather brilliant job and deserves an award.
+Atomsk's Sanakan
Got a problem with that? How about you actually try to address my argument instead of going against how we speak in my culture you racist.
Great counterargument! Again you expose people when they twist science. Excellent as always!
I am always amused by climate-change deniers when they point out that earth was just as hot or just as choked with CO2 100 thousand or 100 million years ago. My first though when I hear that is "yes, but how did New York, London, Paris, or Beijing cope with those climate conditions back then?" And of course the answer is, they didn't. Because none of those cities existed. Neither were there any permanent human settlements, or even HUMANS in the case of 100 million years. Certainly 100 kya, there were a tiny fraction of human, or protohuman, population compared to today. To whatever extent our ancestor species existed, they would either move around to find better conditions or die in the attempt. If the sea rose 50 meters over the course of 10000 years, whatever life was around would adapt or die. Today, we have an entirely different situation. One, we have nowhere to move TO where there aren't already humans, and those other humans will fight tooth and nail to keep their own territory. Two, we have concrete and steel cities, with permanent roads and other infrastructure which cannot be moved, certainly if the sea level rises as quickly as it seems to be doing, or the global temperature starts becoming life-threatening. Third, the rise in global temperatures has been clearly show to be caused by the nearly 8 BILLION people on the planet, all burning carbon in engines and factories and other wasteful practices. The Earth is pretty good at taking care of naturally-produced CO2, it just has no way to cope with the excess we're pouring into the atmosphere every minute. Like cigarette smoking in the past, we've know that our addiction to carbon emissions will kill us... someday. Well that day is coming sooner than we like and we need to kick the habit now if we want to have a healthy planet. And unlike our predecessors, we don't have 10000 years to do it.
The main question when bringing up CO2 levels way back when is how did the level get so high without humans Which are being blamed today
@@christopherton I assume "way back when" means millions of years ago. In those cases CO2 levels were driven by cataclysmic volcanic activity over thousands of years. Today, scientists can sample the air and can tell the difference between CO2 from natural causes and human-generated CO2 and today's CO2 levels are almost entirely driven by human activity over the past 50-100 years -- a far cry from the ancient geologic causes. A very little amount of Googling will tell you this in much more detail if you are actually interested in the answer.
@@sfperalta there are plenty of other natural causes of co2 emissions today
Zero emissions or zero net is IMPOSSIBLE. If we are producing more oil and gas than ever in this country and we have all these wind mills , solar panels and EVs on the road what does that tell you.
Besides , according to super climatologist AOC we’ve got like 6 more years to live. Might as well party until the end
potholer54: I summarized this video of yours to the best of my ability, then posted my summary in the comment section of Whittle's video. I hope I have your permission.
I think I saw it. Yes, very accurate.
I need my daily dose of facts
+BzTruetalk So ironic that AGW deniers EVER accuse ANYONE else of misrepresenting facts or lying or exaggerating.
Opressive Silence the innoculum against ignorance
Honestly dude you're doing such a service for the internet by uploading these videos you have no idea. Thanks a lot! Including the effort you made in the description, wow. If you had a Patreon I would gladly donate.
Bill Whittle: "A world temperature graph"
*In* *the* *top* *corner*, *it* *says* *Greenland*
Yep. I've also seen contrarians use charts of Antarctica and Scandinavia, claiming they represent the globe.
As a fan of both you and Bill Whittle, I appreciate that you are able to present 'the rest of the story' without the vitriol and condescension that is currently plaguing our partisan culture; it makes it easier to swallow, and works to avoid the initial recoil that would more frequently turn away the very people who need to hear it. This is a terrific response; nice work.
+Cary Snowden
*"AAs a fan of both you and Bill Whittle, I appreciate that you are able to present 'the rest of the story' without the vitriol and condescension that is currently plaguing our partisan culture; it makes it easier to swallow, and works to avoid the initial recoil that would more frequently turn away the very people who need to hear it."*
1) Why are you a fan of Bill Whittle? He doesn't have much of merit to say, as far as I can tell.
2) Why is tone relevant to the substance of what someone says? For example, why should vitriol and condescension prevent *rational* people from seeing someone is right? tone =/= content
I am a fan of Bill Whittle because he presents cogent conservative and libertarian viewpoints in an amicable forum. I think he is worth listening to. I find Potholer54 to be of similar keel and also very much worth listening to. The two are at times polarized, but offer listenable arguments that help inform a more complete comprehension from differing perspectives.
As for the importance of tone: vitriol and condescension are the footholds of ad hominem and don't belong in a rational conversation. You are correct to point out that they are irrelevant to the substance, but more often than not it is the delivery that makes or breaks the success of a communication. Note that I am not talking about the strength of an argument, which of course can stand on its own; it is the tone of the delivery that can offend or put off a listener, and thus becomes an important device in communication, education, and ultimately acceptance.
For instance, had Potholer54 begun his response with "Hey Bill, you dumb f-ing pompous idiot..." I would have immediately clicked "next" fully convinced that the response was nothing more than a vicious partisan rant. Instead, Potholer54's response is presented in a lucid and straightforward manner that lends to it's credibility, and works to avoid tainting the evidence with apparent bias.
Honestly, I'd like to see more rational thought presented in this manner. Too often I am ready to 'share' a great argument about science or religion, but cannot because I am certain the intended audience would immediately be offended by language or positioning, and thus reject the message out of hand.
+Cary Snowden
*"I am a fan of Bill Whittle because he presents cogent conservative and libertarian viewpoints in an amicable forum. It think he is worth listening to."*
What cogent points has he made? I scanned his video playlist, and seen little-to-nothing of merit. Just the usual, easily-debunked, unsophisticated conservative talking points.
*"As for the importance of tone: vitriol and condescension are the footholds of ad hominem and don't belong in a rational conversation. [...] ; it is the tone of the delivery that can offend or put off a listener, and thus becomes an important device in communication, education, and ultimately acceptance."*
Not really. An ad hominem would be attacking the person and using that to show the person is wrong. For example: saying someone is wrong, because they're vitriolic and condescending.
One can be vitriolic and condescending without using that using that as evidence someone is wrong. If anything, I often find vitriol and condenscension to be interesting; that's part of why I like CoolHardLogic. He's clearly a jerk to flat-earthers, geocentrists, etc. But he's a *brilliant, informed* jerk, so he's worth listening to.
In any event, I think it's childish and irrational for someone to use tone as a reason for why they won't accept what someone says. It's like a child claiming they won't listen to what their doctor says on medicine, because their doctor is a "meanie". Tone is not a excuse for ignoring substance.
*"For instance, had Potholer54 begun his response with "Hey Bill, you dumb f-ing pompous idiot..." I would have immediately clicked "next" fully convinced that the response was nothing more than a vicious partisan rant."*
And there-in lies the problem. If I'd seen potholer54 do that, then I still would have listened to the video, to see if he had anything of substance to say. If anything, his negative tone would make me want to engage him, if he was wrong. When you avoid every vitriolic person, you're bound to close yourself off to useful information.
That's what I fundamentally don't get about people like you: why does someone's tone prevent you from listening? I don't mean that as an insult to you. Maybe people like you just have a psychological make-up that differs from people like me.
As a fan of these political commentators, I have to respect the length to which potholer uses reason and respect in dealing with the facts and hype.
PragerU next? That just might make me a full convert.
PragerU is so full of misrepresentation of science that potholer would need at least a century to set things straight... :(
Robbedem Other than the religious videos being reprehensible, what videos of PragerU do you find misleading? Just curious.
About all of them. What video's do you think aren't misleading? Then I will try to show you how they are misleading. ;)
(keep in mind, I'm not as good as potholer)
I used to watch PragerU.
Then I realised that they legit thought Fossil Fuels are cheap and renewable, and became sceptical as a whole.
General Patton they have a number of pretty bad climate videos rehashing tired old debunked claims
Please do NOT Stop Potholer, please don't ever stop
i too want to be an accredited dunce, ... ignorance is bliss and i am unhappy
Holy wow, do you get tired of explaining this stuff time and time again to people who just won't listen?
Trung Nguyen Apparently he doesn’t, or he does but he has enough cocaine on hand to get through the day.
I worked with Bill at the astronomy lab.
He mopped while I brushed.
I love how casually you rip apart these people's arguments.
"arguments"
Hyde Hill "people"
norTron HK "I"
Assertions :)
Even if their arguments are complete retardation, it doesn't mean they're not arguments.
Conclusion, “It’s about the fundamental integrity of science being weaponized into politics,” said the ever politically charged Bill Whittle. How did the irony of this statement not crush his skull...one wonders?
But, I could not agree more with that critical insight into the social discourse we constantly hear concerning climate change and what we should do about it. How can we parse out those using it as a weapon for their political gain?
Thanks Potholer54 for your continued enlightenment!
In my 70's and I can't point to a past time when hypocrisy was so rampant, the lies so flagrant, and the resistance to it all so vacant. It is no wonder we find ourselves in our current state of affairs. Whatever happens to humanity, we shall have earned it by our own labors. Extinction included.
He worked as a lab assistant? Our lab assistants are the only guys in the lab without science degrees.
I saw a video of this guy once complaining about a sign that read "Once you poison every river and cut down every tree, you will learn that you can't eat money."
His reply was "I will just go to the store and buy more food!" completely missing the point of the message.
Link? Thanks
“I’m a complete dunce” 😂😂😂 I love the feeling of finding a new favourite channel. Keep it up sir!
Potholer is completely correct about the Science, he is exceptionally wrong about the Politics. We are our government. The Driver behind fixing this will almost certainly have Politics involved even if Big Business decides our future is more important than their present at some point.
So at the end watching Potholer throw vagaries out implying the Left and the Right are both wrong for misrepresenting Science, he is practicing false equivalence by leaving the viewer to think both sides practice it at the same amount. It is important in that moment to inform the viewer that the Right misrepresents Science far more than the Left, by a staggering amount actually.
The Right has taken it so far they must be called out politically to fix things.
Potholer, thanks so much for your videos and I mean that. They are incredibly informative, even to those of us that follow the issues. I hope you'll take this correction in stride if you find it credible and help us support the party that understands Anthropomorphic Climate Change to be true going forward.
Love ya buddy!
Not sure about the right being more wrong than the left, but I guess depends on what you mean. There is a lot of misinformation coming from both sides. Are we talking about extremes here?
The general message coming from the right is denial - nothing happening. That's packaged in many different ways but it boils down to "nothing to be alarmed about".
The reality is that over the next 80 years, sea level could be 1m higher and temp warmer by a degree or two. This doesn't seem too extreme if we think about speed of change on human time scales I.e. it wouldn't be particularly noticeable.
The left by comparison are telling us cities are going under water, there will be mass extinctions, the planet is dying etc. They're also claiming that almost every natural disaster is due to climate change... fires, floods, storms, heatwaves, tornados, droughts and they're using this as political leverage. Way over the top stuff. They're even prepared to destroy modern democratic capitalist societies as part of their solution. The left claim to have science on their side but the misrepresentation of the facts is as massive as anything on the right. Just my observation. Could be wrong.
@@toby9999 I was not ambiguous at all.
The Right in this country overwhelmingly thrives on less education, the dumbing down of existing education, dilution of Science, discrediting of Science, and obfuscation of all fields of study to make its arguments and pass new policy and retain existing policy it champions.
The Left does not even come close and seems to embrace the opinion and study of people IN RELEVANT FIELDS OF STUDY instead of counting on some Twitter Personalities and a couple of Climate Deniers with a BoS in Economics (of all things) to make their case.
It's embarrassing to know that we have a faction in this country that plays on America's dumbest and wins America's dumbest.
You repeated the same point Potholer did, "they both do it." That is False Equivalence. OK, sure, both Day Old Rice AND Dog Shit stink! But If you had to put your nose in one or the other I bet you'd pick one predictably and quick!
@@Phaleel *"Anthropomorphic Climate Change"* - You might want to edit that bit; you mean anthropogenic, but your phone my have autocorrected to "anthropomorphic".
@@ajmeyers5661 NO! I saw an extended dry period in and around New Hampshire wave at me the other day.
I meant Anthropogenic. :/ XD
@@Phaleel *"I saw an extended dry period in and around New Hampshire wave at me"* - I stand corrected then :)
It's funny how in every case of these videos, these people "debunking" climate change are always misrepresenting data.
+Consider It Done Former vice-presidents tend to get more attention than RUclipsrs...
It's not a phase mom it's funny how environmentalists are the only ones that are actually monetarised in the whole scheme yet people believe the propaganda of the left even though the left invented and systematised propaganda. Read history and don't go for the bait of the leftish political agenda. I hope you all live for aother 50 years when all this BS about AGW is debunked for good. But you'll still forget!
Propaganda has a history going all the way back to the Roman empire and probably earlier. How is it something the left invented? Talking about left vs right makes no sense before modern times. Unless you somehow think the Romans were leftwing?
+TheGalmo Exactly.
+CROM It's funny how deniers are the ones who benefit the MOST from keeping the status quo of burning fossil fuels and an easy lifestyle of luxury caused by FF addiction, no matter how much harm that forces upon the poor nations who create the LEAST CO2, so deniers are the ones with the BIGGEST FINANCIAL BIASSES, and who COLLECT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN WELFARE, yet they attack solar & wind farm advocates and electric car advocates.
Wow thumbs up. I rarely see a youtube video that shows actuall peer reviewed papers. I adore that, especially because i used many of the ones shown here and many graphs aswell in my thesis this year.
Just a slight error in your manuscript on this one: You state that: "during the late cretaceous, CO2 levels were about 1000 ppm, compared to 400.000.000 today." Obviously, you meant to say 400ppm, so it's not a critical error, just a slight slip-up, you might want to add a note on. Timestamp: 3:30
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that, and I think you are the first person to spot it. Unfortunately RUclips dos't allow annotations any more, so I've added a correction in the video description.
I was a bit skeptical of climate change after seeing some Crowder videos, you've basically destroyed every one of their arguments in a very objective, and even entertaining, way. Thank you for your service, we need more people being skeptical about the skeptics.
EDIT: people, skeptic =/= person with good reasoning. This is the definition: "a person inclined to question or doubt *accepted* opinions." Climate change is largely accepted as a correct theory, Crowder doubts this theory, thus he is a skeptic. That's the only thing I was saying.
"we need more people being skeptical about the skeptics."
I'm normally for people being allowed to identify themselves how they want, yet with climate change 'skeptics' the skeptic part doesn't mean much.
It'd be like someone is a gravity 'skeptic' and you show him a pen dropping and they just go 'it didn't drop, here's a graph where the pen goes up'.
af afssaf crowder is a pundit, not a skeptic. He's entertaining and I like some of his vids but he's nowhere near comparable to Sargon in quality
Hey, take that insult back. how dare you compare Idiots to Crowder!!!
+Callidac Smaerd Sargon, the man who literally thinks he is fighting a war? I've liked him before, but I must question your assertion of quality...
They're not skeptics; they're deniers.
Climate scientist and politician seem to be the two profession every keyboard warrior thinks they're better at than people who devote time and energy in study and practice. Maybe football referee should be added in as well.
Remember how Doctors told us that smoking does not cause cancer ……. there are always some who want access to the petro-chem dollars. But the vast Majority of scientists are genuine.
Same applies to peer review journals and study grants. Yes, the vast majority of scientists are genuine - they continue to be skeptical of their own results - but not the vast majority of climate scientists, who don't and in fact won't even acknowledge the shortcomings in the computer models that when given actual historical measured data do not reproduce current climate conditions. AGW is simply politicised "science".
@@TonyRule ….. Where is your justification for excluding climate scientists as people of integrity Tony ?
@@Eric-ye5yz Try reading my comment.
@@TonyRule …… I read your comments, and I asked you a question, why do you think climate change scientists are less credible than other scientists. Its is very simple, do you have a reason to believe as you do?
@@Eric-ye5yz I have many reasons. Two are specifically mentioned right there in my comment.
I suspect Whittle ment Astrology not Astronomy.
Is ESTIMATED to take thousands of years. But, the estimated rate of Greenland ice sheet melt has been adjusted upward several times now and is 6X greater than it was just 30 years ago. Any guesses about what the next adjustment might be? Think it will be greater? What do you think the adjustment of the estimates for Antarctica might possibly be? Given that there are dozens of positive feedbacks that are kicking in.
I'm really glad I found this channel, there was a point where I was entirely uncertain about climate change but this channel has helped me find the right direction. Thanks
0:18 projection for sea rise
1:52 response to Bill Nye's poor video
2:57 CO2 was higher in the past
4:47 response to fake graph of temperatures
10:24 response to "climate always changes"
12:13 why CO2 changes with time
14:17 why did CO2 get to 2.5x current levels
16:21 responses to predicted arguments
16:53 science being weaponised and regarding Whittle's video
17:33 Whittle's mistakes
Why are these people so unbearably smug when asking those tedious rhetorical questions? Every bloody time
tubetardism 20/20 very true!
Next thing youtubed, "How controversial is science?"
Who criticizes potholer's voice? That's one sexy voice. I might be biased though. Talk about science is stimulating.
One thing I have learned over the years..When it comes to Math and Science Republican's dont understand either.
If you can't let the partisanship go no one else will. Someone has to start...
I wouldn't say they don't understand it, they recognize it has power to get in their way, that is why they undermine it as much as possible.
Aj Meyers M8 do you really think that the 40% of Republican voters who get their news from Fox would ever be willing to cooperate with the left? They probably think that the Democrats are led by the anti-christ and the world is 6000 years old. That's not a gap we can really bridge because they're denying reality.
1:23 Stefan Rahmstorf is one of the most respected experts on the subject. He and his reasearch got me all interested in Geophysics and Ozeanography, in fact. But after seeing all the backlash he receives from the public and politicians alike... No, that might not be for me. So I studied computer science instead. If you are into climate scince you must be able to handle the hate, even if it isn't really hate. Rahmstorf explaned that people just don't want to be told that they are doing something wrong. That sort of attitude might well be our demise.
potholer54 You are a patient man. It must be frustrating to see such idiotic statements in the comment section after you've just explained the reasons why
He's probably on his raft already.
The answer is simple: we must turn off the sun.
potholer! I was waiting for this!
Way too few people talk about HOW climate change did occur naturally in the past. They just keep saying "it has changed before" and leave it at that as if it's a gotcha argument. Little do they realize that natural climate change has always come about through a rise of CO2 levels and we are in the process of artificially recreating the atmospheric conditions that existed MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO over the course of merely a few DECADES.
Deniers surely don't. I'd say science educators might want to do more explaining of climate change where they explain the past of the planet. (Which I think was the intention of Bill Nye)
How the climate on earth (and other planets) changed and what the effects of that were, is all important to know. People who don't know that, can't be expected to understand climate change in face of so many deniers being popular.
For example the idiot in the video brings up how the climate has changed since 4.5billion years ago, but doesn't explain what the effects of that change were. He doesn't show an estimation of what the earth would have looked like 4.5billion years ago. I'm not an expert on the exact amounts, but it was a climate that doesn't support human life. Thus 'it always changed' becomes an argument if we keep out whether humans can live.
Scientists can call earth's climate change catastrophic, while they don't do so for the climate changes on Saturn.
I haven't seen an explanation for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval, Roman, or Minoan warm periods. They are well documented in the historical and proxy records as both significant and global.
George Applegate
Please show how those periods are well documented and global.
+Darckense Onoda
For example, here is a page that organizes the global proxy studies that demonstrate the MWP. There are dozens.
"For example, here is a page that organizes the global proxy studies that demonstrate the MWP. There are dozens."
Where?
Thank you so much for making this video. I'm s conservative and I came into this thinking it would be some leftist freaking out about climate change. The way you addressed this is the best and most professional I've ever seen. Critiques on politically motivated videos etc. Are always healthy.
P.s. I thought it was funny that he used a graph from Greenland to show as "world temps." I didn't notice when bbn I saw the original video. LOL
Conservatives should be freaking out over climate change. Conservatives by definition abhor change. Younare one of the rare conservatives who is open minded. Political psychology and empirical social psychology shows that conservatives are less open minded than more liberal people. They also engage more in motivated thinking, or wishful thinking. So this explains why many, but not you, tend to be science and climate change deniars. Fortunately, over 70% of US citizens consider climate change and man made climate change to be a real and pressing problem.
Potholer apparently likes to get his information from actual scientists, rather than from Some Dude On The Telly.
@Love Power Movement -- in order to give other people room on this forum, I'll collect all your comments and put them here, in one post. That way people can still read them if they are interested in your thoughts. In the meantime, why not respond to the people who have challenged some of your claims in the threads you already started?
Anyway, here is your latest:
"Love power Movement 2 hours ago: Lets not argue about who studied science or is published. That’s all bullshit. Show me your climate model that accurately predicts the climate? You can’t because you don’t have one. Show man"
I have shown these in two videos: "The consequences of global warming (in our lifetimes") and "Response to 'The global warming hoax Lord Monckton and Stefan Molyneux.'"
i clicked this shit so fast
Prinz Vidar Same here, brightened up my afternoon.
Prinz Vidar lol same. Me and my old man keep having this argument, him saying al gore started this craze for profit and that climate scientists only use the info that suits them.... it's frustrating.
Ask him what he'll accept as a source, as long as it's a science based source.
Will any of the basic science magazines be acceptable sources?
But if he's just decided that no science source will work, then there isn't really any point.
Does he take medication? Ask him what he does when he needs to see if the medication will interact with other medications.
Does he rely on informed sources and published research? Does he ask his doctor?
Would he trust his friend's non professional opinion on the health consequences of taking certain medications?
I might also consider calling up your local university.
Personally, I try like hell to not have any discussions of any importance with my dad, but that's just because of the history of our relationship. Hopefully, yours is better and more cordial.
MrOttopants Its usually pretty cordial lol
The problem is, while I point out that one side is using partial information (antarctic glacial increase vs net global decrease) or twisted info, he refuses to believe that and claims that each side interprets to their narrative.
We also argue the viability of energy replacement (wind, solar, etc.). To be fair, he's not against the move to clean energy, he just believes our climate isn't being impacted by us and our current tech can't viably replace fossil fuels
Good. Well, good luck with talking to him. Climate is the only thing my dad isn't totally crazy about, so I could probably mention it, but I don't try.
+Potholer54, I found two errors in this video, or rather one error repeated twice. At 13:06 and 19:40 you assert that you are a "complete dunce". There is no evidence to support this and much evidence to the contrary.
Yeah. That was bugging me too. I have a PhD in chemistry, and I know a thing or two about science, but climate science is not my field and I don't feel remotely competent to do the sort of debunking that potholer does. I think he is not even close to being a dunce. On the contrary, I think he is much smarter than the idiots he is forced to debunk.
He just forgot to add "compared to Einstein" after "complete dunce". I think we can forgive him for that.
Watching these videos show me why the conspiracy theorists get sucked in
@@GordoGambler you’re arguing with thermometers
@@GordoGambler Sydney has been FLOODING, but the sea level isn't rising and global ice isn't melting?...
@@GordoGambler I'm not going to bother with everything you wrote, but could you please cite your source on your first statement, i.e. that arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012? Peer-reviewed of course. Thank you!
"I taught astronomy for 20 years"
"At age 13, he began working at the Miami Space Transit Planetarium[5] and was made a console operator by its director Jack Horkheimer after a few months.[6] As a teenager, sometimes called "The Wizard" by co-workers, he wrote and directed the planetarium's light shows."
That claim is just sad.
These are great videos to teach science, not just climate science. The best and most important RUclips channel, a great service. You have so much patience.
The internet is a sucker for anyone who speaks authoritatively. Thank God for people like Potholer who include their sources.
excellent video potholer54
Potholer, I gotta say that your calm, non-personal and "just the facts" approach to these debunks/discussions is constantly impressive, and something that I aim to emulate (not always successfully) in my own discussions with people holding different points of view. Thank you for continuing to make these.
Your voice is great !!
Fantastic rebuttal, Peter! This was perfectly presented!
I very much appreciate you walking us through it. This is the first time I’ve heard many of these ideas.
Another excellent Potholer54 video. Always a joy to watch. Please keep them coming. Many thanks.
Amazing work as always. I would have been stumped with that greenland graph which was incredibly misleading. The fact that you snooped around enough to figure out and calculate the correct time scale is above and beyond.
What do you think of the documentary “Cowspiracy”?
Dammnn, Potholer, you so cold you're already fighting global warming with your takedowns!
Been rewatching Potholers vids over the last week and what do I get to top off the week but a brand new one - excellent!
Wonder when Bill will post his rebuttal. Won't hold my breath
Anyone who doesn't think dumping billions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful, shouldn't mind being trapped in a sealed room, which is slowly filled with said gas...
but her emails
Nye talking about the maximum possible sea level rise is a valuable point of reference. As you said in another video, self-proclaimed climate change "sceptics" like to make the faulty argument that "a small increase in CO2 can't have such a big effect". But knowing that the maximum possible sea level rise is 70 meter indicates that 1-2 m (3-6 ft) is not actually all that big on the absolute scale.
There is also the fact that climate change is a debate about the future even beyond our lifetimes, that many people perceive it as a responsibility for the planet and humanity. It's true that it would have been useful if Nye would have mentioned the actually expected scope, but teaching the full scope is not wrong or even necessarily manipulative.
Agreed. Potholer said that Whittle did the same thing Nye did, but that's not accurate. Nye, at worst, exaggerated the issue, making it seem like massive changes would happen sooner than the thousand year prediction. Not saying he did necessarily do that, but I can see that as being a not completely unreasonable perception.
Whittle, on the other hand, left out a lot of science and used misleading graphs in order to say that the warming we're experiencing is just part of a cycle. In other words, no cause for alarm, nothing we can do about it, just go about doing what we've been doing. That is a huge difference. If someone is bleeding and you think they'll die unless they get medical attention in 10 minutes when it's actually 30 minutes, the unnecessary haste might cause mistakes, but barring any fatal mistakes, it could help save the person's life. On the other hand, if you just say the person will be fine and we don't need to do anything, then the person will die of bloodloss.
One might cause problems, the other will cause problems.
9:11 There is a comparison between two charts. What is the difference between "Air Temperature (Deg C)" and "Temperature Anomaly (C)"? Is there a difference?
Interesting stuff either way.
"Air temperature" is an absolute value. A temperature anomaly shows the difference between air temperature and the average air temperature over a given period of time.
Linear thinking a result of mentation in one dimension. They get velocity (sort of) but are totally mesmerized when presented with the concept of acceleration. Then there's complexity and chaos leaving them stupefied to the core.
We've definitely got some Anglophobes here in the comments section. How odd, they think you're British.
As usual, Peter, to the point. Please keep the videos coming.
I'm really quite baffled as to why people dispute man-made climate change. It is a fact that there are greenhouse gases and it is a fact that we are putting millions of tons into the air. What else do they need?
Remember, these are the people who opposed removing lead from gasoline because of profit. The same who funded studies that show cigarettes improve health. It's funny to hear one NOW claim that science is being weaponized against them. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.
Being mad that science is being weaponized for politics is interesting.
Empirical observations from the 1st of September 1939 led the British and French to believe that Germany had invaded Poland resulting in declaration of war. How dare these people weaponize empirical observations for their politics.
+Consider It Done how on earth did you make that connection rofl
+Consider It Done That reply section was amazing.
Consider It Done
Please define what that article is 'advocating for paedophilia'. What does the article want to be done with paedophilia?
I'm entirely confused why your link isn't the direct article, but the twitter page.
+Consider It Done
*"Sure dude, and using your logic, 'you people' are the ones advocating for paedophilia."*
What? Do you mean Milo Yiannopoulos? Because despite Milo's comments on pedophilia, he does not accept the evidence-based scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
brilliant as always
That is what concerns me about science popularizers like Bill Nye and Neil
deGrasse Tyson, their mindset is generally positive and they mean to do well,
but they appear on tv and radio a lot, and any mistake they make is seized upon by
critics and used to discredit the name of science itself.
Bill Nye should stay out of climate science tbh. He's not qualified to handle the complexities of the field.
I've seen him in several discussions with deniers and he usually does a very bad job in my opinion. He's not able to answer the usual conservative criticisms of the IPCC-studies for example.
stemkb
It's actually a really common tactic of the denial machine to single out scientists or communicators, make it sound like the entirety of climate science rests on their work, and then attack them viciously so that people think they are debunking climate science.
Bill Nye is a fairly popular target. Just think of how many "skeptics" made videos calling him a fraud or a fake. Al Gore is a massive target. It's hard to actually get through a conversation about climate science without someone saying "but Al Gore was wrong!!!!"
The most common of all though are the scientists who created the hockey stick graph: Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. The graph has been the target of so many attacks that plenty of people just take it as a given that's it's fraudulent or "broken" or something like that. For example, in some answer Ben Shapiro gave to a question about climate change, his response essentially started off: I'm not a climate scientist but I do know a few things like how the hockey stick is broken.
You can see it in this video too. Whittle blatantly lied and claimed that all climate science is based off the hockey stick. It's a worrying state of scientific knowledge.
Would you rather no one talk about it and the public be generally uninformed? While it brings issues for certain, I would say that it is overall better that more people are aware.
Thomas Chadman
It happens very often with any group really. If you want to attack a group just find someone from that group who is at least semi-famous who maybe made a slip up and said something dumb and then present them as the mainstream. It's not hard, especially with the internet you can easily find a channel with a few thousand subscribers or footage of some lecture or an interview. Hell you can probably find someone really famous making a mistake but from a few years ago.
Tbh I think a lot of the time they are very aware they are making mistakes but they do it anyways because it may be better for the style or delivering the message. Like how they never make citations in their shows because it would just ruin the flow. It's just like how BBC's Planet Earth doesn't pause every beautiful nature shot to cite all the research about animal behavior backing up what they're saying. I think specifically in this case with Nye he was very aware that the rising sea level wasn't a major threat. But his goal is more to make sure that people are concerned about climate change. He's hoping to make people look into it more themselves and discover the more immediate threats. The only problems with them is that they can be somewhat abstract or not very close by. Like ocean acidification sounds very technical to someone who isn't really sure what an acid is but hopefully they'll educate themselves about the issue.
Do these people know they're lying or do we think their biases simply allow them to grab whatever 'evidence' seems appropriate whilst at the same time feeling that they are, in actual fact, telling the 'truth'.
It baffles the hell out of me.
they are knowingly lying. maybe they genuinly believe that scientists are exaggerateing the dangers of manmade climate change, and some activists do, then in their minds they are fighting fire with fire. i think they also tend to have financial reasons for misrepresenting and lying and muddying the waters.
He feigns struggling with 3*100 in his head then suddenly knows 30cm=11.8in instantaneously 🙄
Potholer - I tried your technique of arguing the facts with a skeptic who has a small enough channel to respond to comments. He responded to some of my questions about "where in the peer-reviewed literature does it state that - ". He kept just posting links to blogs and newspaper articles and then decided that "The peer-review literature is just a circle-jerk in an echo-chamber...".
The guy thinks the entire scientific method is bunkum. I must admit that I had to give up for my own sanity.
I think the most important thing is that you showed everyone else that he was not telling them the truth. You don't have to convince him you just have to show everyone that he isn't right.
Thank you. This video has some great info, and is easily understandable.
Thanks for the video. Glad you are still taking the time to look into these things.