Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2017
- Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says lawmakers and the media cherry pick scientific papers to reinforce political ideals on climate change and says it's irresponsible to create public policy while ignoring the scientific community's consensus.
![Natanael Cano x Oscar Maydon - Giza [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eXCS6-MSQ_Y/mqdefault.jpg)
My favorite rule of thumb: if something is complicated and big money is involved, then you can expect fraud and corruption.
Stanley Goddard my parents were two pack a day smokers. My mother could actually circular breath her cigarettes smoke. It left her mouth, flowed up her upper lip and back in her nose.
I’m not a smoker. There may be no links because the scientists where latterly silenced. I’m not going to research it any further. My parents told me smoking was not good for me, even though they were addicted.
ruclips.net/video/ipVxxxqwBQw/видео.html
i think big money is the motivator. simple or complicated. simple just takes more of a smoke screen.
Mine is: if the government is forcing a truth down your throat we can almost always conclude that it is in fact a LIE.
That’s a complicated ‘rule of thumb’ 🤨
At the beginning of every disaster-movie there's a scientist being ignored.
WaffyNimb that is Hollyweird pushing GLOBULL WARMING. You are so gullible that you think Hollyweird movies are reality.
WafflyNimb Yeah usually the "lone nut job" scientist who goes against the government consensus panel of expert's. Who are actively hiding their blunder that is causing whatever crisis is now arising as a result. Lol.
WafflyNimb The operative word here being "movie".
Yeah, and movies aren't real, dumbass!
We're not in a movie.
On the matter of scientific consencus: In a formal reaction to the book ‘Hundred authors against Einstein (1931)’, Einstein responded: “Why hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.
That's bullshit. Einstein just repeated what OTHER scientists were already saying; and then in 1950 the propaganda-press gave him credit for it so that Russians couldn't claim they did it.
@@iandezur4043 so what, the guys was a super genius
Best comment ever...!
@@michaelbartnicki9464 "so what", said you. Translation: Truth doesn't matter. I've been shocked, shocked I tell you, that it took me over 50 years in life to realize there are people who don't care what's true or not true. Anyway, have a nice day. :) Disclaimer: It was a figurative shock.
Gary Hawkins Firstly, you’re playing the “gotcha” game. Shame. Second, how does discrediting Einstein and blaming Russia make your argument any more relevant? I’d like to see where you got the info on that.
arguments from authority and from majority are recognised as cognitive biases which cut no scientific mustard
way to miss the point entirely. Let me guess; you're w Republican.
Same with arguing against them, though.
@@eyesofthecervino3366The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim
People will cherry pick anything to suit their selfish beliefs.
They cherry pick the bible
They cherry pick science
They cherry pick morality
instantsurgery they cherry pick my dick
Hey atheists, what was the mechanism that triggered the big bang or big bangs???
We don't know... yet. We don't fear not knowing. We don't need to fill all these unanswered questions with comfort blanket called god
So you don't know what caused the universe or universes.... But it wasn't a creator, right?
As instantsurgery said, we don’t know what ignited the big bang (universe). And this isn’t a bad thing. It shows humility and honesty and creates the driving force for scientific discovery. But yes, because we don’t know we can not 100% rule out god as a possibility. However There is no evidence for god, thus no reason to believe is was a god and would be scientifically dishonest to say it was god because there is no evidence. If you still wish to believe it was a god, you may, but please realize that that requires faith. And all the modern conveniences that most of society enjoys were not created by faith. I’m not against religion/faith necessarily, just when it steps outside its realm and interjects itself into science.
The issue of climate change was doomed as soon as it became a political issue, because in that moment, there was always going to be a group of people who chose to believe it or not believe it in order to stay in their political "lane". It seems like we're slowly getting past this but still a ways off.
Climate change is a hoax because I saw a RUclips videos about it. Take that science
@@aliasbam2750 😃😃🤔🙁🙁🙁
There certainly is climate change ..I can walk out my door on a 93 degrees day and know that!
@@srubberalittle Search Up the Grand Solar Minimum
@@srubberalittle Except they didn't change their mind. Just because you read some article in the newspaper, doesn't mean shit. Science has never predicted another Ice Age any time soon. The global warming was the mainstream science since 60ties.
"It's irresponsible to create public policy while ignoring the scientific community's consensus."
Well, this aged like fine wine. I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson could have predicted our response to Covid based on our response to climate change.
All the terrifying covid models were wrong.
And then some…
The response to Covid was gross overkill. Any reasonable post pandemic analysis concludes the unintended consequences far exceed any positives.
The unintended consequences of course were obvious and suspiciously censored.
@@tindog999 stf* flat earth 🗑️
@@stx7389 you stf socialist moron
3:53 epic rhyme
There's a hurricane there, i don't know
Should I stay, should I go
And then you stay and you die
Bill Nye the Science Guy
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclaire.
alblanzjr , exactly. Which is why all these scientists are getting rich writing books and making appearances regarding a theory that they don’t truly believe.
@@joewright9879 So those fires burning in the Arctic are theoretical?
The warming alarmists have been very guilty of cherry picking their dates and papers. Just look at all of the failed predictions.
and even harder when it's a [ career ] woman
@@liner011f7 Examples?
"When two politicians argue over whether or not science is true, it's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." -here we are.
There can be valid and properly executed science, but no science is true. In science, there is no assertion which could be true or false, the assertion or theory comes later. This is the position that no scientific statements are true, it is called scientific nihilism.
@@SigilShorts The moon has a huge blue glow at the moment.... plasma ?
Your an idiot. There is no actual hard evidence humans are the cause. None. Neil is basically saying well these 100 say this and these 11 say this so we go with the 100.
@@justinaime7301 Isn't that quibbling? At least a little bit?
@@smithnwesson990 Congratulations, you just simplified scientific consensus that has existed for thousands of years. Bravo, I guess.
Yeah, with my ex I wondered: Should I stay, should I go. I stayed, I died.
I've seen good men die staying with a bad women.
Did anyone else catch the part where Neil deGrasse Tyson is claiming that Abraham Lincoln was passing laws in 1963 clearly he meant 1863 it's just funny when someone's trying to get their point across in their speech and they have a slight error of a hundred years I love you Neal it's okay it just shows you're human
xxo
I caught that.
No matter your position on the climate, please limit what you throw out as in plastics & chemicals :D
The problems of pollution and waste need to be given way more attention than they are now.
Nah
@@lmao-mx5dj if you would have to be chocked under the waste you produce you'd think otherwise.
@@samovarmaker9673 k
Sticks and Stones with Mike. There's no "position". Climate change is an objective truth.
You can't cherry pick science unless you believe the smartphone you are watching RUclips videos on is powered by magic and not decades of rigorous scientific innovation.
this is a good example of a Man that shows evidence to support his claims.
...and a Man that has vague claims to support his lack of evidence.
I find your comment offensive. Do you know how many millions of man hours of prayer it took for Jesus to miracle iPhones into existence?!
;)
The entire scientific compendium is based on magic occult practices. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton without the Corpus Hermetica...there would have been no scientific revolution.
You are cherry picking right now. Your smartphone may be an example of a scientific technical achievement that you appreciate, but what about all of the things created by science you do not appreciate. Global warming itself has been caused by science.
Global warming is caused by the Sun, Jupiter, Earth's magnetic field, the dust cloud the Sun has been moving through that we are beginning to exit, and cosmic rays. Not burning gas and farting.
I think that one important thing that Tyson points out in this video is the fact that you can find a scientific paper that says almost anything. Because of this, people can point out any random paper with nothing else to back it up to support their false beliefs. He calls this cherry picking. When creating any kind of opinion or policy, it is important that we always pick out information that is supported by numerous scientists and that is what Tyson calls "settled science". It is important that we all base our opinions on established facts and that politicians do the same with policies.
They did that to Galileo.
The fact is it's a global scam. Need help with the facts?
@jumpingblue1623 Incorrect. Before Galileo, the modern scientific method did not exist. It was the Catholic church that persecuted Galileo and pressured others to agree with the church. Galileo dared to differ with orthodox church doctrine and was punished for it.
The church used the Bible to determine what was true concerning the cosmos, Galileo used methods of discovery that conflicted with what was accepted from biblical teachings. Galileo helped to pioneer the modern scientific method but was regarded as a heretic in his day.
So you see the consensus Galileo fought was one derived from religious dogma, not scientific research. Because of this stance, he is regarded today as a hero - and rightly so.
You have this backwards.
Abe was alive in 1963, pretty amazing.
No, 1863..lol
Kennedy was assassinated in 1863.
Person who spends their entire life studying this: "We have the data. This is settled science."
Person who never studied it and doesn't even know what half the terms mean: "No it isn't. Because a youtube video said so."
it's just ridiculous
Haha yeah, especially the sheep that watched A MOVIE from Al Gore who's not even a scientist that contained a brunch of apocalyptic nonsense of which nothing has come true and all THE sheep still believe that nonsense.
@@oscar6832 Would you rather have someone exaggerate the consequences of your actions or not tell you about them at all?
@David Collins When it comes to how the gun works and what will happen when its fired, you bet your ass I'm gonna listen to the guy who made it over the person holding it. You have also just made the same point as Dr Tyson. We shouldn't trust every scientist and every study. We need multiple scientists and multiple studies all pointing to the same conclusion to be sure we are right. This has already happened with climate change which is why it's so insane that people still say it's not happening.
@Någon Hemlig He's not just talking about Neil. He's talking about all the other people who have spent years studying this topic and all the papers that have been compiled proving manmade climate change is real. Also even if Neil had all the evidence supporting climate change he could not give it all in one short interview. Thats why he talks so much about the multitude of sources supporting him. If you doubt what he says you can just read the papers yourself, although that can be quite tedious.
as an witch doctor I'm offended and outraged
Tyson may be a smooth talker and can spin a good story about how CO2 will be the death of all of humanity and most animal species, but if you fact check just a little about his fraudulent parroting of the easily refuted claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that human consumption of fossil fuels is the major cause of "Climate Change", then you can see why his ilk is deathly afraid of debating the top critics of their Climate Armageddon fairytale. I'd much rather put my trust in a dark asian witch doctor because their "hotness" is real! ;)
@@channelwarhorse3367I'll have what you are smoking. On second thought your mind is much too burned up to function in society.
Sometime, look at how the so-called consensus was measured. Send out a survey then hand pick which responses to count. Statistically invalid.
@@channelwarhorse3367I'm manufacturing solutions in your addled brain.
@@channelwarhorse3367a water powered engine or home? You are so far from reality.
"You can find a scientific papr that says practically anything."
Nuff said.
But we don't make important decisions or come to conclusions with just one scientific paper. Michael Manns hockey stick data was corroborated by over two dozen follow-up studies and then affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, for example. We should never trust one study, no matter the subject.
Right, it was proven that Exxon was funding anti man made climate science studies after realizing the disastrous effects of fossil fuels several decades ago.
@@ericmanget4280Fossil fuels. Do you think dinosaurs leaked all that oil out? Do you think man can change the climate of the entire planet when it is mostly water?
@@karlklein2966 This is the most idiotic reasoning I've read yet.... Anthropogenic climate change on the scale we're doing is absolutely capable of changing the planet. The main contributors are fossil fuels emissions, cattle rearing due to the methane, deforestation releasing thousands of years of stored carbon from old growth forests, and feedback loops such as the majority of the arctic ice melting which would otherwise naturally reflect the sun's light/heat. Go look up what's happening to Venice, it's literally underwater right now: ruclips.net/video/QhaSeJu_mVs/видео.html&ab_channel=FRANCE24English. Were you asleep all of 2020? There were raging wildfires that turned the fucking air sepia toned across North America and Australia: ruclips.net/video/ccpg_1kilIA/видео.html&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake%3ANow. The arctic is shrinking at a rate that it'll be gone in a few decades. The coral reefs across the world are all being killed due to the ocean's rising PH level from climate change. You think this is all just a coincidence that it's all happening within a ~century of the industrial revolution?
You get crazy people in every profession. Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't suffer from mental health or be influenced by greed. You're obviously going to get the odd scientist whose papers are not accurate, but as Tyson said, you take things seriously when a large number of scientists are in agreement.
"The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." - Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric science professor and lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Have you ever tried cherry picking? It's hard. The birds eat the good ones a day before youd pick it.
fishyc150 - I have. The best ones are at the top.
I would always try to pick the 2 or 3 cherries out of canned fruit cocktails before my mom could split it between me and my brother.
@Gary McMichael lol lol lol lol.
I have a cherry tree. This is true. We need a net over em. sucks ass.
They must taste good straight off the vine
97% of Pompeii residents believed they angered the gods.
No doubt you have the data to justify that statement.
Proves belief is irrelevant.
David Foster not when they weren’t educated on the idea of Gods. Unlike climate scientists they were clueless. If a 97% majority believe that’s the way an evidence is pointing it suggests 3% do not have the prowess to back up the claim. Simple.
@@freescratch645 FINE, except that over 50% of Americans still believe in God (Plural, if you count Jesus).
David Foster again not a valid claim, religion is a faith based claim, whereas climate change is done totally off data and evidence. It’s a silly comparison
Problem is you have one party that will vote against anything even if it’s not in their interest to do so
"Abraham Lincoln signed into Law in 1963..." I'm sure he made a mistake, anyone catch that?
Only hundreds of times throughout this forum.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I did not see those comments haha
Oh, you actually got it! Smart boy.
i can't believe this is still a debate, i mean am i the only one exhausted by this still being a discussion?
It really isn't a debate much outside of the US.
well, it should be, we should question everything the government says, everything.
BzTruetalk yeah not very much free speech up here in Canada, or Europe, or Australia, or every single other first world country... Don't be dumb.
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
There is no debate, there is simply idiots who don't understand versus learned adults that comprehend what science justifies
"The day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done. It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
Perfect.
Now, 4 years after your comment, there’s politicians who don’t know what a woman is… we no longer have an informed democracy
500 climate scientists sent a letter to the UN telling them that man-made global warming does not have a consensus.
@@Islamisthecultofsin 5 million people believe we dont need Oxygen to survive
its a good thing thats only 0.71% of the population... and possibly a convenience there all dead.
500 in relation to what? and even so the particulars matter "global warming does not have a consensus" of what?
@@jasonu3741 They claim that there is a consensus that all climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing man-made global Warming. It doesn't exist.
Well well said... Amen
If consensus were to be the litmus test for what is true in science then we would still be deferring to Galen in medicine and maintaining that the earth is the center of the universe. The only problem with consensus is that the studies from academics nowadays has been so poorly managed that people cannot trust the research.
“What is the cost of lies? It’s not that we’ll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.” -- Chernobyl
This is flawed reasoning because the threshold for saying the Earth was the center of the universe was significantly lower than the threshold for saying that human activity is accelerating the rate of change in the global climate. Consensus itself isn't a reason for something to be true, but modern consensus a lot of very smart people arriving at the exact same conclusion over decades using better and better technology. There aren't any competing theories, except for Fox viewers proposing that nothing is happening at all.
I would suggest you read the IPCC report and what it really says about climate change. The percentage of flawed studies in science as a percentage is VERY high now a days. I think your deferral to very smart people are naive as best. You need to read both side of the argument yourself as there are some very smart people on BOTH sides. If you remember your decades studies use to call it "Global Warming" and when that did not turn out to be true they call it "Climate Change". Also the conclusions of many of these studies have predicted that we all should be dead by now. Last I looked we are not. Do not rely on others to do your own thinking for you. It's called group think otherwise.
My analogue to the erroneous rational to geocentric view is spot on as you had a number of philosophers reaching a conclusion first and then trying to support the rational for it through astronomical observation. I am reminded of the quote from Ronald Coase: "“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess”. The same holds true today. This holds for both sides of the argument.
By the way, no one that I know says that climate change is not real, but what the causes and consequences of our policies/decisions is in question. @@Ben00000
I lived on the an island and I never saw the water rise year after year. I can't believe any of this.
Every location on earth varies as to relative sea level rise. Some land locations are subsiding. Others are rising, due to glacial rebound or tectonic uplift. Some islands actually grow due to deposition of sediments and broken reef debris during storm surges. That's why scientists gather data from thousands of locations around the world to determine an average. Both NASA and European satellite data and worldwide tide gauge data agree on the numbers. Average global sea level rise is now 5mm per year, according to the World Meteorological Organization. That's up from 4mm just six years ago and 3mm back in the 90s. For most of the 20th century it hovered around 1.5mm per year, and that would be pretty hard to notice unless you were keeping very careful records.
@Valrath823 Very good point.
@zama202 It's among the silliest arguments I've ever heard. Obama's property is ten feet up and 300 feet back from the high tide line, and have you ever heard of flood insurance, zama? Every waterfront property owner has it, so if a tsunami or a storm surge washes the house away, the insurance company is on the hook, not the Obamas. Also, sea level rise is 5mm per year now, which gives most property owners plenty of time to live in their homes without worry. 30,40 and 50 years down the road will be a different story, but for now, most people ten feet up from the high tide line will be safe.
@zama202 Actual science? Do you know what that is? Because if you did, you would have known that the Milankovitch Cycles of earth's axial tilt and precession exposed the northern hemisphere to increased solar insolation in the historical time period you mentioned. That in turn raised global temperatures, melted ice sheets, and released C02 and methane. That in turn raised sea levels.
Today all three Milankovitch Cycles are in phases favoring cooling, not warming, yet we're warming anyway, and sea levels are rising when they should be retreating. It helps to have ALL of the information, not just a pixel.
"When science doesn't fit someone's world view, they deny it." - Bill Nye
Like transgenders
Oh the irony...
Like the weird gender stuff Bill had on his show.
Macario Patrick "The Vagina is a Penis" - Bill Nye
Macario Patrick Says the non-scientist. Would you get advice about plumbing in your home from an electrician?
It's really tough to separate science and politics in today's world. I do know this....when there is enough money involved, people will try to convince you of anything
Which is exactly what he's become.
A talking head for the left. 🤷🏻♂️
Amen. So critical thinkers look at the evidence and make a decision based on reality.
It would cost fossil chemical companies trillions to switch to green tech, why would they do that?
While global warming is real what he's saying I think is we need open debates on all sides to figure out how much of climate change is being done by humans vs natural progression.
@@kairon156 why can't you do your own research, why does it have to be entertaining?
The danger of knowing some information but not enough to know that you don't know what you don't know.
No
I didn’t know Abraham Lincoln was signing legislation in 1963 , he’s so smart
😂
Lincoln lived a lot longer than I realized.
yeah, i picked up on that too
ZenFox : yeah, I noticed that too.
No, it's just a slip of tongue.he died in 1865.
ZenFox. It's called a slip of the tongue. How come you don't know that?
@@danzel1157 Zenfox was just making a funny comment because of the slip of the tongue ! how come you don't know that ?
only in america these things are questioned
malizlato yes because believing blindly is incredibly progressive
Well its questioned elsewhere aswell. but not to the same extent. but i belive that has something to do with the culture in america, where American this and american that is superior to all other. wich is simply wrong.
mazzaker18 When you put it like that you make Americams and yourself sound resoundfully negative.
But you're not entirely wrong. It is a culture but one of individualism and collectivism. European cultures in particular essentially are in favor of almost unilateral authority, for example the EU.
Americans on the other hand don't trust like to being told what to do unless we know its in our goddamn interest to do so. Thats not wrong at all good sir
Kurai Kenshi Do you seriously not understand the concept that some things are so obvious and settled that skepticism is completely unwarranted? Are you skeptical that the earth orbits the sun too?
The way you described americans seems incredibly dangerous and ominous.
I really hope they aren't like that.
Support the innovators who are grinding each day to make this world a better place. Crowded place makes a good news. Congregate for solutions and innovations not only for blaming.
It's a pity that people would rather crave power then knowledge with technology we could stop world hunger, poverty, etc but new generations discard science
Pride ego and jealousy. The root motivation of every man. It's why most of the time I don't like myself. But atleast I am aware of it and it doesn't entirely control me. But you can sure see it run amok in other people.
Anyone denying science is also denying progress.
Yet they still use their computer , heh ?
"Denying science" is not a thing, people don't even know what science IS, America is so dumb, but arrogant because it gets idiots and perverts famous on TV. Meanwhile in the history books, it went against climate change, and is the reason people will have to thank the EARTH as a whole is fucking hellish to inhabit in xx years b/c half a moronic country voted a reality star in b/c they thought he was "tough" and "cool". idiots!
Gissel1989 tell me what progress you are talking about and which science are you referring to
Its the artists, architects, engineers, mathematicians, inventors, etc.. who brought us into the modern age not scientists.
Cody131Coops I hope you understand how stupid that statement is.
Fareed Zakaria looks like the Indian version of Willem Dafoe
In 2019 when Al Gore's catastrophic global warming prediction has been proved to be a lie and NASA had no choice but to release temperature data showing that the earth has been under global cooling since Feb 2016, both Al Gore and Neil deGrasse Tyson sound like driveling fools to be so certain about global warming. There is no consensus among scientists regarding global warming. There is only consensus of among scientists sold out to the global warming scammers.
VIDEO: The truth about global warming
VIDEO: 25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists
VIDEO: 30,000 Scientists 9000 Phd's - Sue Al Gore Over Global Warming FRAUD.
@@simon6071
The Earth has not been cooling. The trend is a warming one. Where do you get your information? Because it's flawed. If you can provide evidence from a scientific source I would be more than surprised.
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
As for the 30,000 scientist petition;
It is misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science.
If there is sanity in question here it has to be that of those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus. The science on climate change is solid. The counter claims are shoddy, and easily debunked. Which is why so many personal attacks are made on scientists, along with those who support them.
@@danzel1157
VIDEO: 8 Climate Change Predictions PROVEN 100% False
VIDEO: Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction.
A British high court ruled there were nine significant factual errors in Al Gore's "inconvenient truth". The court cannot lie about Al Gores predictions being correct when they failed to come true. However, his film is still allowed to be shown in schools because the globalists want Al Gore's fear mongering to continue. In the USA, the fear mongering is continued by AOC who claims the world will end in 12 years due to global warming if the USA does not stop using fossil fuel.
@@danzel1157
When scientists see solid evidence of NASA ans NOAA tempering with temperature data as showing in the video "Corruption Of The US Temperature Record" and "Arctic Sea Ice Nonsense - The Media, NASA and NOAA Blatantly Lie To The Public", they don't need to be climatologists to tell people about it . When Al Gores prediction of catastrophic global warming failed to come true, we don't even need to be scientists to point out Al Gore's fear mongering BS.
@@danzel1157
Google: HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
"When Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired."
Don't you realize how self-contradictory and biased you are?
AL Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. He is just a con politician who made a bunch of fear mongering predictions of catastrophic global warming to get rich through carbon tax while pretending to be an environmentalist and the global warming sheeple like you would idolize him as if he were the the top authority in climatology even when his predictions failed to come true and even though he is a hypocrite who uses twenty times more electricity than ordinary American families.
VIDEO: Al Gore's Inconvenient Hypocrisy
We live in a world of extremes. Both sides refuse to admit that they both may be right and wrong. Each side must be 100% right. THAT is the issue.
A fundamental issue like the climate crisis has not only the potential to annihilate us,
it has the potential to serve as rift within societies, split them along political and economic lines and therefore accelerste such societies' slow downfall.....
Nope. Truth is not built by consensus.
"People say, 'Look. There are still questions.'"
There are still questions about _gravity._ It's _existence_ is not _among_ them.
lazyperfectionist1 nooo one is denying climate change idiot.
But notice how what idiots like Neil never call it by its real name.. "ANTHROPOGENIC climate change"/MAN MADE climate change.
Real easy to paint your opponent as a kook when you're being twisting definitions.
That's like someone arguing gravity isn't due to the fabric of space time but is instead due to XYZ law. Real easy to label him a "gravity denier" when he is no such thing. He is not denying gravity, he is denying your hypothesis of what causes it.
lazyperfectionist1 sure but then if you are a Flatearther.... lol
dab0331 ,,,you ought to take a squiz at the current views of ozzy political leaders. I don't agree with their bs, but they are rather efficient at quashing the effectiveness of those who try speaking against them. Gotta respect insurance choices apparently. aiw,,p.
lazyperfectionist1 gravity doesn't exist
Flat earth of round earth, nobody can explain that!
Rides go in tides go out, you can't explain that- Bill O'Reilly
Neil deGrasse Tyson: *chuckle* Actually we can.
Considering that flat earthers still exist in the 21st century, getting universal acceptance that climate change is real will surely be impossible.
If you truly believe in science then you won't universally accept any idea, as that in itself is anti science and is ultimately dogma.
@@Gambling4Life I will accept things that have reasonable evidence and/or coherent reasoning to support them. A flat earth has neither. Climate change has lots.
Ah yes 1963, the good 'ol days of the Lincoln Presidency
NDT is a perfect example of social promotion.
How does taxing American citizens a billion dollars fix this?
Nunya Bizness this shit just came into my recommended too
Are you denying the climate science or accepting the science as true and struggling with the best ecoomic approach to address the warnings and obvious devastation?
Jrouche the science is not settled, it’s a theory, and a bad one... water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than co2. And even if it were a settled theory, the US is not the largest polluter in the world. Even worse still...the largest polluter here in the US is the federal government, and if you think for even a second that they are going cut back...well you’re not very bright. I do agree however that we, normal regular people can do more to prevent pollution but that brings me to my original question...how does taxing US citizens a billion dollars fix this?
Jrouche no one is denying climate change, the climate is always changing. But pretending that the WORLD IS ENDING in 12 or 11 years whatever dumb number it is, is just a lie and fearmongering to just get elected. The same people who want to end climate change are driving their cars everyday, eating beef, not recycling, and they want others to do something about it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
@@bo3inprofilepic292 No one ever claimed the world was ending in 10 or 12 years, your misinterpretation is the lie or misapplied data is what politicians and theocrats use to muddy the waters. If you actually listen to climate scientists and even well informed scientists in other fields such as Neil Degrassee Tyson you wouldn't claim the world is ending in 10-12 years.
Hell, Americans should live in India for a few years and witness the irregularities in Monsoons that didn't exist a few years ago. The state of Kerala got flooded because it rained too much too quickly. 2 years ago it was dry as a bone. We see these irregularities become more extreme year after year.
Idiots will continue to argue even a the brink of extinction.
+82 Pythons
India's monsoon season in 2018 is NOTHING close to being below average. Don't talk out of your rear, come live under the many feet of flood that previously dry areas are under before you jump to your cranially deficient conclusions.
It is not the fact that climate changes that is the problem. Any average middle-schooler ought to know that climate changes. It is the alarming rate at which it is doing so currently, that is the problem.
But let us pretend that climate always changed this quickly before humans. Well, earthquakes always happened, that doesn't mean we should stop research into earthquake resistant buildings and such. If climate change will cause an apocalyptic change in human society, we ought to prevent it, whether or not it is natural. We did not become the dominant species by idly sitting by while the planet exterminated us.
I like my toilet.
AI XE........despite you going completely off the rails there, I'm gonna ask you this relating to your "apocalyptic change" you mentioned. Can we agree that there once was at least one ice age? If an ice age occurred again, one would call that apocalyptic! So, should we therefore not be warming the planet to prevent this disaster? Can you see how your theory falls completely flat on its face now?
JustUsFlyers
Notice that I mentioned that it would be apocalyptic to our society, not to life in general. Life does, as the meme/cliche goes, find a way. Society, however, is a different matter.
Do not pretend to understand the causes behind ice ages. The causes of ice ages are not fully understood, and no ice age has ever been affected by a preceding period of warmth. Warmth that, in many cases, far exceeded what humans can comfortably thrive in.
The ice ages are complex phenomena that are rather more intricate than thawing a leg of frozen mutton or whatever.
As usual, nothing I said falls flat on any part of its metaphorical body.
What are you on about?? I'm assuming extermination only affects society then? HAHA.
Christ you're off the chart arent you? Where did I even mention the cause of an ice age lol. I was merely pointing out that if in your world we can prevent the "theory" of the planet warming, then surely we could prevent another ice age should it occur? You say this is possible whether natural or man made. So if a warming planet is occurring, and its completely natural, how do you propose we prevent it warming enough to affect "society"??
Some good points. Some reflections:
1) We should not be concerned with “settle science” (aka scientific consensus) but rather of truth. Anyone should be free to question anything but humble enough to know the limits of their own expertise.
2) You can’t point to any instance of a weather event (e.g. the hurricane, as was done here) as proof of climate change. The one could be true without the other.
3) What I am most skeptical about personally is not that human’s are contributing to climate change but that the effects of the change constitute a crisis.
Greenhouses produce power using sterling engines, heating, cooling, distilling, and climate albedo cooling, plus carbon sequestration. You can also grow a tomato.
And energy is NOT LOST.
It transforms into other forms of energy.
0:45 Copernicus had a scientific paper that took hundreds of years for a majority of "Scientists" to accept. Science is not conducted by consensus, it requires proof.
It requires "proof" that is falsifiable and a body of work that is actually allowed to be published that attempts to falsify that proof.
The mere fact that you can't publish a work where you outwardly attempt to falsify man-made global warming, is pretty bad and unscientific; HOWEVER, we're beyond that... Not only are you denied your right, your role necessarily as a scientist, to subject a study to falsification, but the mere notion, the intention to do such, results in career suicide....that means, by default, man-made global warming is not science. If it were, there wouldn't be only a "2-3%" of papers with dissenting opinion. Science isn't a goddamn Democracy, and it can't be subjective within a study, but also it can't be subjective in managing the body of allowable studies. 2-3% is a clear indication there is pseudoscience happening. Every single study published has to name it's potential faults, where it could have been improved, and the limitations of the study....in order to yield to falsifiability. 2-3% doesn't cover those weaknesses - 20-30% would still be low.
If it hit a 30% falsification attempts published and they couldn't do it, maybe...maybe I would say man-made global warming is accurately stated. 97% consensus doesn't make sense scientifically. It makes sense in a political context...maybe..., but definitely not a Scientific context...
Of course, science is not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of working through everything that goes into making a conclusion based on facts. There is a lot that goes into it. Most laymen and politicians, they are not equipped to go through it all, nor would most of them have time or will to do so. But politicians still need to make decisions, based on science they don't understand. So how are they to know what are facts and what are not? Simple, ask what the consensus of scientists is. That's the only way to approach this, they are not scientists, they cannot actually do the science in order to reach a conclusion, they can't even learn properly what scientists have already done, but they still need to know what is the TL;DR and make decisions based on that.
@@j.macjordan9779 there is no dissenting opinion left, because there is nothing left to try and disprove that hasn't been tried already. It's all been done and tried decades ago. You don't see any climate change rebuttals the same way you don't see any heliocentrism rebuttals, it's ancient history. FFS, Joseph Fourier figured greenhouse effect out in 1824, climate change deniers haven't even caught up that far. Actual scientists have better things to do than try and refute basic thermodynamics. The effort is on more accurately quantifying all the variables and on doing more accurate analysis on how much and how fast.
@@aleksandersuur9475 Can you explain to me what thermodynamics has to do do with "Climate Change"? Just because the word has "therm" in it, it has nothing to do with "Global Warming". I'm baffled? Like they say," if you don't know what you're talking about , baffle them with BS".
@@thevoiceofreason2153 I'm sorry for using a term you are not familiar with, but I think that I can indeed easily explain it. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics dealing with transfer of heat, change in temperature and how it relates to energy, work and so on. So if we talk about something cooling or warming, then thermodynamics has everything to do with it, that is the physical basis for the entire change in temperature thingy. You will be learning the basics of it in physics class once you get to about grade 6 or 7 in your school, it might seem a bit complicated at first, but don't worry, it really isn't, everyone else learns it, you will too.
He said 1963 instead of 1863.
TY, I thought I was the only one who noticed lmao
I noticed too
I had to listen to it twice to make sure that he really misspoke. LOL Like everyone else he gets excited and makes mistakes as he's on TV. We are smart enough to know what he meant.
I wonder if we could be interviewed or n national television and not make a mistake 🤔 this man is smarter then all of us put together. Talking about cherry picking.
Well done Einstein , instead of focusing on point you just picking up stupid things which should not matter in this topic.
June 2024, six years later and we've done NOTHING to slow climate change.
1863*
I think that what he meant..
Lincoln was president 1861 -1865. So, it was a slip of the tongue.
This is the best analysis I've ever seen on the unfortunate and dangerous phenomenon of non-scientists inserting themselves into the scientific process. Neil rocks!
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change. Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below: "For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes." Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works." Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
I rest my case.
Tom Right? I love these RUclips schizophrenics who just use the Internet to further deepen and cultivate their mental issues. Jokes aside. I do Infact think that it's problematic.. It's like a crazy person can find another crazy person and they can all agree with each other. Some weird validation. Anyway done with the rant have a nice day.
Please tell me how keeping science objective and accountable to it's claims is lunacy as your hypothesis states.
Tom You haven't looked very deep into it have you?
Neil's brain must hurt 24/7 with the stupidity of People. Same with bill Nye. They both made shows that break it down Barney style. Yet people still call them fake and wrong. Help us. Lol
I like Bill Nye but he lost credibility for me when he said that there are multiple genders.
Bill Nye is an example of cherry picking climate change. He is a fraud.
OMG this is the realest thing ive read all day.
Mace S They are lying.
Bill Nye does his show at Barney level because he isn't a scientist. He has only a layman's understanding of science, just like me or other people who pay attention but don't work in the field.
This is so true. Cherry-picking scientific research simply isn't reliable. Furthermore, politicians love this strategy, which only welcomes separation among many people. Settled science that has been around for years upon years seems to never be brought up.
He doesn't want anyone "picking" the data that destroys the false hypothesis.
@@Rick-yk5qbSo you missed his point entirely...
@@jasonm3835 What exactly did I miss?
@@Rick-yk5qb You missed his point Rick. You know as well as I do that your interpretation isn't what he meant at all.
Neil is stating 'within science you need to look at the whole picture and not read too much into conflicting isolated results'. The more fringe results may have merit but only after they can be shown to be consistent with multiple lines of evidence to strengthen the case for them.
You are doing exactly the opposite of what Neil (correctly) advises: reading too much into a single result or line of evidence and making premature widespread assumptions from there.
@@jasonm3835 No, you don't understand basic science or how to falsify a hypothesis apparently. Would you care to define how to falsify a hypothesis to me?
One important point that Tyson makes is regarding cherry picking of certain scientific subjects. He mentions that you can find a scientific paper on basically everything. He then mentions how the media will take just one certain scientific paper and call it a "new truth" regarding the subject. This blows the paper out of proportion, because it could just not be backed by other papers or evidence. It is important that we use information that is backed by several scientists. Tyson calls this "settled science". We need to use settled science in order to use factual information
Grants are given to researchers that give the opinion needed by the grantor. So the numerous papers support the donor's agenda. Now they say "the science is settled. Look at all the papers"!
Uh science is never settled. That is the entire point of science.
Later, after ,"the science is settled" it only takes one reproducible experiment to change "settled science".
The media are the cause of the big failure in science communication, now folk are sceptical about many things, climate change, nutrition etc.
1:46
Uhhh think you're about a century off Mr Tyson
Denier! :P www.theclimaterecord.com/extinction-rebellion-strikes-out
TheClimateRecord wtf this is about the number he said
Glitchxed Fix wRonG yOu aLt RiGhT nAzI tHe CiViL wAr HaPpEnEd In 1960
Lol I never noticed that
I caught that.
I consider myself a pretty strong conservative, but how this climate change topic became political is beyond me. I think it is fairly obvious that the climate is changing -- I'm sure that some of it is due to human beings, but I'm not sure as to what degree we are responsible. But the fact that we are responsible for at least part of it should not be up for debate.
Drop, it became political when Prime Minister Thatcher realized she could use it to break the coal coalition. It spread from there.
Everything is up for debate, don't stick your head in the sand.
Even if humans somehow were not responsible, we still have to live here. So why wouldn't we try to slow it down?
@@noisycarlos because it's a natural part of the cycles that the planet goes through, warming is not indicative of bad things happening; according to all of these alarmists, we should have seen the beginning of the end already, yet things are not actually getting worse
fracking, mass pollution, go to a city and see the smog in the air. you question the amount we are doing is small? its pretty obvious, just look around, we are destroying nature and mass producing smog. also if you look at the timelime from how the climate has changed in the past 100 years its been very distinct from previously.
How much money does he and CNN make on climate hysteria?
One word for not believing: Covid 19
Two more: Covid Vaccine
Scientists should run the country
el_chino_778 You want a guy that thinks we live in an computer simulation as the leader of this country? Good one lol
That is just for lols dude.
Scientists aren't thuggish enough to be politicians.
Paul yeah rather than a guy that believes a magic man in the clouds that decided to create the world just for the dank memes
el_chino_778 Maybe a scientist should run for President then. Or maybe we should just put them in charge, liked a monarchy. I dont know, but anyone is free to run for office.
Two things come from politics mixing with Science: One bad politics and two worst science
King Brilliant True, but no one is competing with us about climate change like they were, and that’s making it harder to give an incentive to government to save the planet.
Long before the left ever thought of climate alarmism, the left was shit! The political left was always trying to cheat it's way to power! They have defiled everything they have touched, along the way, INCLUDING science!
It rained so what? ..so what about the SHOCK of the decrease of Hurricanes for the last decade?
Speaking of cities next to oceans, maybe the weight of the cities is causing them to ... SINK! And maybe GENERATE the heat attributed to CC ???
"We should listen to the Consensus" 3 years earlier "Science doesnt work in Consensus" -Neil Degrasse Tyson. I love you Neil but you're starting to turn left HARD!
Oh man
FUCK that eternal LEFT-RIGHT BULLSHIT!
I am SO fed up with that crap!
We're ALL in the same boat, so
SIT YOUR ASSES DOWN AND STUDY AT LEAST 5 SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ON THE TOPIC FROM THE DENIERS' SIDE AND THE MAINSTREAM'S SIDE.
PEER REVIEWED.
But most people quickly are drawn into politizing the issue, arguing back and forth so that little results are made.
Humanity.
Pathetic, junkie-like behavior while having high tech.
Human. Like me and you.
The purpose of science is to constanrly question. "Settled" science is the oposite of that.
That is for the progress of science You don't see a car maker try to make a square Tyre just because they think the science is changing. Science doesn't change. Our understanding of it does.
@@shashank.k2509 There's no "understanding of science". Science is not a God that dishes out information to you, science is the flawed process by which flawed people gain flawed information. Science might not change, but its results do. That's why the "settled science" of 500 years ago doesn't pass today.
@@christianponicki9581 I regret to inform you that most of that is false.
@@shashank.k2509 I regret to inform you that your comment is worthless and clarifies nothing.
@@christianponicki9581 my comment is worthless to you.But you're not the only one who's gonna read it. I can get into the specifics of climate change but after spending/wasting a lot of time that I regret to have ever spent trying to educate people like you on different social media platforms I've just about given up.
So how does he respond to Profs. Lindzen (MIT), Happer (Princeton), Christie (Huntsville) and others who go, (a) the satellite data says the temp hasn't gone up as much as you're saying. Have you checked your thermometers aren't being affected by urban sprawl? (b) our plants are LOVING it because they evolved to eat much higher levels of CO2 than we have now (we pump it in at 1000 ppm to greenhouses because that's what they like). (c) CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past (2,000 ppm when brachiosaurus was stomping about) and the world survived. It was at 7,000 ppm when our fossil fuels were laid down. How about the NOAA's own ice core samples that show we go through periods of warming and cooling, and peak warming every 100,000 years or so (we're just over 100,000 years since the last one)? How does he justify plunging the west, responsible for less than 50% of CO2 emissions (which are greening the planet. China and Asia, plus developing countries being helped by China, account for over 50%) into economic disaster, with its associated starvation, suicides, riots and revolutions over something that happens regularly, and that we cannot stop even if it WAS our fault because the biggest 'polluters' won't play ball (India calls it eco-colonialism. Frankly, I'm with them).
Is the temp rising? Yes. It does that. Every 100,000 years or so, it goes very high. Then it drops down to around -3 to -4. The last one (just over 100,000 years ago) was the Eemian. 100,000 years before that we had La Bouchet, 100,000 before that Purfleet, and 100,000 before that the Hoxnian. It happens, it's predictable. We need to focus not on stopping it, but on steeling ourselves to deal with it because even if we stopped (everyone, including China, Asia, etc) producing CO2 tomorrow, the temp with STILL go up. We also need to find a reliable power source that can work in subzero temps, because that's what comes next. Wind and solar will not cut it.
CO2 is 0.04% of the 1% of GHGs. Of that over 96% is entirely natural (plants and animals breathing, evaporation from the oceans, volcanic activity, etc). Man is responsible for less than 4% of 0.04% of 1%. If the Earth were SO sensitive that it would burn up if we carry on, it would have burned to a crisp when Krakatoa went boom in 1882. It didn't. The Earth can cope. It IS coping by growing more plants (which are feeding the people, so win-win).
Bottom line. The threats to the farmers (Eire told they must slaughter 200,000 cattle, farmers across Europe told they must stop growing food, stop using fertilizers and generally stop running efficient farms) has led to outcry because we all know that if they stop, we starve. They're telling us to get rid of our cars and shift to electric, but the grid couldn't cope if we COULD do that, and most of us are too broke thanks to the cost of heating and fuel right now. We're poor and we're starting to get very, VERY angry.
Most of the alarmist stuff is coming from one model, RCP 8.5. They put figures we know from 50 years ago into RCP 8.5 and asked it to tell us the weather today. We're all, apparently, dead. Of all the models, RCP 2.4 (I think) is the lowest and most accurately aligns with reality, but it's not scary, so they don't use it for the press briefings. There's only so long you can keep crying wolf. Stop funding this idiocy and you'd be amazed how fast the fearmongering goes down. I've seen papers on how diabetes is responsible for the obesity epidemic (as opposed to stupid amounts of cheap sugar in the food and sedentary lifestyles) and diabetes. Say ANYTHING is caused by climate change, and you'll get published, even if it's utter rubbish. This has got to stop. Use the trillions being pushed into this into defences against rising sea levels, research into genuine alternatives to fossil fuels (which WILL run out one day, and we need something we can turn on and off to accommodate peaks in demands. You can't do that with a nuclear power station!), and ways to keep people cool because we're going to need it, but stop saying we're going to turn into Venus. We simply won't. We're not close enough to the sun, we have MUCH more water than that planet ever had, and Earth has been through this MANY times before.
He has to think this way to get on CNN. Talk about cherry picking: pick the date of the start of the change in order to prove whatever you want.
Absolutely absurd. He's talking science. He doesn't make it up. Before anyone else posts something really stupid about Tyson, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The change occurred as global sea-surface temperatures have increased over the same period.
'Start of the change'
Well to be technically correct, it was in 1748, because that's when commerical coal mining began
I got an ad about thus guy before the video started lol
Same
I didn't. I conquered it.
I didn't.
i got it too, skipped it asap tho
That’s how advertising on RUclips works
Neil is the type of person that appreciates you for asking a good question.
didnt he say dont question?
As much as I like him, but he's the guy that appreciates you for asking .... anything that gives him an opportunity to talk!
he can't answer good questions. he answers only the questions coming from the ones with the same prejudice as his.
You mean SCRIPTED questions used to promote a global scam.
If we want to effectively tackle these problems, what we need is to focus only on measures that have a real impact
1) distance tax: a tax that increases the longer the goods are shipped or transported- this incentivizes a local economy and stops the mess of goods running around the world for no reason.
2) female education- the more educated the less children they will have, as overpopulation is a huge problem
3) tackle income inequality- tax the super wealthy and the multinationals, make them pay the right share, no more tax avoidance or producing in countries with lower regulations. Big companies need the most resources and make up the biggest polluters, so local and smaller is better.
4) universal basic income so people dont have "to make a living" at any cost and follow their passions- no damaging, stupid or unnecessary work
5) make hemp biodiesel (and other biodiesels) make up 30% of all fuel compulsory in the economy and make investments. Tackle food waste and make it maximal 5% of all produced. Go towards 0% fossil fuels with improved technology. Swap most plastics for hemp-derived materials
6) sustainability index- make an index of the worst environmental offender-practices. Ban those that are not needed and bring within limits those that can be made sustainable. Use taxes to incentivize/disincentivize
7) go towards a bio-adapted infrastructure such as passages for the wild under highways and so forth. Go back to natural farming, drop all intensive farming, is healthier anyway. Decrease production of animal products. Abandon chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, all not sustainable.
8) we need a working UN back in some form, to protect areas such as the amazonas and other strategically important parts of the world for the ecology. Besides that we need first nation countries to invest in countries that are lagging behind, as the investment would yield much greater results. This is a global challenge.
9) drop all the measures that wont make any difference and accept that we cant control it 100% at this point. Maybe there are some benefits in a warmer climate too.
Feel free to copy/paste
Not bad. I could quibble a few details. Your proposals should help.
How come despite the majority of the world turning to rentable energies and planting millions of more trees over the last three decades apparently the percentage of Co2 has gone up in the last year?
Renewables represent a tiny fraction of our energy sources. Our use of fossil fuels continues to outpace CO2 savings from renewables. We're also still losing more forest each year than we gain.
@@sreyerbri7469 China is one of those. China obviously must curb its usage of coal, but with a population four times that of the U.S., it's a mighty big energy ship to turn around. Nevertheless, they now the lead the world in the development of wind, solar and nuclear energy. They are all in on adopting electric cars and buses. They've adopted the world's largest carbon market, and they've planted 66 billion trees.
Contrary to popular belief, Americans still emit more CO2 per person than the Chinese do. Most Americans own cars. Most Chinese don't.
1863.. I don’t mean to be that guy but someone had to say it
HaikesXO damnit!!! I wanted to post this
Fareed should have fixed it. He dropped the ball.
Itunu Adebola eh, every rational person watching knew what he meant to say. Watch that come up on fox "news" about how Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson doesn't know anything because he thought Lincoln was president in 1963. Actually, I take that back, people on fox news don't listen to Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson because.... Well, they're on fox news so: pee pee ca ca!!!!
Fox News has the temerity to cite "non-scientists" like Freeman Dyson. Wait... Dyson is a real physicist who has made substantial contributions to our understanding of the world. Tyson on the other hand...
I caught that too. Watch Republicans try to invalidate the entirety of his argument based on a simple honest mistake, while they support a guy who probably doesn't even know what the Academy of Scientists is, let alone the implications of establishing said body!
Neil is miss leading when he says scientists only debate about the fringe edges of science. We thought Newton physics was settled science in till Einstein came along. There is no such thing as settled science because new information can always change our view of the world.
Tony Heller is sometimes shadow-banned on RUclips. I wrote an article on this. You can easily find it on the website of my Stanford University office.
Heller may or may not have been an OK chip designer, but he's hilarious as a junior climate scientist. I frequently use Heller as an example of how to not perform science on modeling. The reason is that Heller keeps making the same mistakes no matter how many times he is corrected, and the mistakes are somewhat hilarious. For example he claims (or at least did at one time) that the US is cooling. What he did was use an algorithm that used a simple average of all raw temps for the US-48 and claimed this slight increase was proof... of something. Problems include 1) You never use raw temps (this needs no explanation to ANY scientist from any field with the possible exception of Heller), 2) He makes no adjustments for time of observation, a very junior oversight (or maybe it was never an oversight) and 3) The addition and/or subtraction of stations makes it obvious that some form of gridding must be used.
#3 is particularly funny because with Heller-math the US will show slight cooling (when we all know it has been warming) but western Europe shows an incredible amount of warming. Why? Newer stations in the US have been trending northward, and southward in Europe. I ask younger attendees if that would affect the results and I get laughs, which is really laughing at anyone who would not employ gridding.
In my direct experience, most science deniers are religious. So why shouldn't they cherry pick science in the same way they cherry pick their holy books?
Oops! I think he meant 1863 - not 1963!
Hey that was Tyson's most accurate claim. lmao
How dare you question Tyson! He sir, is a complete genius who gets nothing for promoting a government agenda. And if you talk back I will be forced to call you a hate filled racist.... dont make me go there!
@@vf12497439, you should seek counselling.
@@musiclover9361 I dont think that would be a good idea. The bastards would lock me up! 😮
vf12497439 Mental health system needs A LOT of work...
You don't have to be a "scientist" to use your ability to reason.
Wow, we have a really deep philosophical discussion down here. You guys must be professors or something.
However if you're debating science common reasoning often falls if you don't have any understanding of what you're talking about.
ha! 😂there's a hurricane, i don't know, should i stay, should i go.... deGrasse bars
“I am so tired of people who cry about climate change and jump on the band wagon of stupidity. If they actually did the research and scanned public & world meteorological sources, facts & conclusions using the real science, then they might have a better understanding of why they should choose Not to become one of millions of frantic, crazed climate change zombies.
-Tim Berglund
"Science is never settled........PERIOD" Quantum physics certainly is not.....just one example.
@Carlos Davis That's not a scientific theory.
Except that it is. Are you confusing quantum mechanics with interpretations of quantum mechanics?
I don’t disagree with Neil but I’d prefer to see some charts of CO2 levels, ocean acidity over the years, average yearly rainfall. Some numbers not just talk.
Did he say Abraham Lincoln signed in 1963? Don't think he was signing anything in 1963.
When I hear Neil, I hear preaching and I don't even go to church.
So don't warn you when you're about to be hit by an ice cream truck because it might sound like preaching?
Sounds like he's selling something. It would be curious to know what he has done to clean up his act. Getting fat. Eating plenty of red meat ?
“Sometimes... science is wrong”-Mac
It wouldn't be a first time.
Hero Colten
Un 1978 “we only have 12 year”
Everything has the ability to be wrong sometimes!
Science is invariably, always wrong. Which is the main point of the scientific method and the falsification principle. If there's any wisdom this debate will reveal to the masses about science is that It's meant to be treated as a system that forever updates itself because it can never be true. To prevent or oppose criticism of any theory is to retard scientific progress that leads to useful outcomes.
@@smorrie9204 progress is not always a good thing...lol
"The day two politicians are arguing whether science is true... It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
So if we start out with a lie but are in “consensus” it becomes true
The consensus came true after analyzing the empirical evidence held in thousands of peer-reviewed climate studies. Nobody voted on it.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet wrong!
They have looked at the MODIFIED data, empirical data is available if you want to look for yourself, it is not showing what the alarmists claim!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet again, if you start out with incorrect data, you don’t end up with an accurate outcome......
@@1966cambo Unadjusted data is inaccurate data. When you measure temperatures in the afternoons in one half of the 20th century and measure in the mornings in the other half, the data must be adjusted to account for the change. When you measure temperature in an area with a heat island effect, you must adjust the data to account for the difference. When a satellite drifts in its orbit and its sensors pick up a slightly different level of radiance, that difference must be adjusted and accounted for.
Raw data is not accurate data.
Cite your peer-reviewed scientific papers that refute the adjusted data. Not from oil industry or conspiracy blogs. Scientific papers published in credible science journals.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet i don’t HAVE TO CITE ANYTHING!
Explain how the 1930 high temp readings have all but disappeared from records?
And do your own digging, like the email leak of 2 “scientists” trying to decide how they can rid the record of this bump in temps!
0:46 I think he is dying of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
Wait wait wait. Abraham Lincoln signed something into law almost 100 years after his death. That’s umm well interesting
1863.
While I detest this guy's "nothing made everything" pseudoscience, his date was a Freudian Slip.
The other one is his "tax climate change" mantra that he's been paid to support.
Science is the practice of finding facts and absolutes through hypothesis and results of those tests.
Niel degrasse Tyson has tested the science of his wallet.
No more.
No less.
For THAT I'm disgusted that he calls himself a "scientist" because of a few pieces of paper...the one on his office wall & the few bits in his wallet.
Atleast he's not "Shill Lie The Propaganda Guy".
@@maestroaxeman Sreudian Flip
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ABRAHAM LINCOLN
@Aaron Payne. Niel Degras Tyson was correct that Lincoln founded the National Academy of Science though he incorrectly said 1963 instead of 1863!!! Now let's look at the numerous times that YOU made inaccurate statements!!!
Y’all: “OMG GUYS DID YOU HEAR HIM SAY 1963 INSTEAD OF 1863”
And I'll bet you've never once had a slip of the tongue in your whole life, right? Give us a break.
so whats brother?..are you that fickle...oh yeah you are...cross back while you can
Cole Betts-Must be Biden's brother. Trump/Pence 2020.
Damn I was just pointing out how people are spamming comments like “I think you mean 1863” when he was talking about Lincoln. Don’t know why everyone’s so pissed
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Especially when you are being watched by LOTS of people.
Why would anyone think it's not acceptable to ask is something is right?
I don't think that Abraham Lincoln actually did anything in '1963', did he? (I didn't mishear it: even the subtitle said 1963 too.)
I can't believe that Ben Shapiro bad mouths this wonderful person Neil degrass Tyson
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change.
Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:
"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."
Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.
I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
It's funny how all of the political hacks that love Tyson don't seem to mind when he defrauds his cancer-stricken business partner. Because that's what true scientists are interested in; stealing money from cancer patients.
Yeah let's listen to a lawyer talk about science
*Watches a video about cherry picking papers to fit a pre-established worldview
*Cherry picks a paper to try and make a point
Haden Wilson did you even listen to Neil's point in regards to politics and science? Jesus.
I thought he wanted to say cherry picking is bad, meaning media shouldn't use 1 warm day to freak out over global warming.
When have they done that?
@@HiThere-zh6sf ALL. THE. TIME. And NOAA regularly changes the data for their own purposes. Go to the Tony Heller or CDN channels and they'll set you straight.
Hi There literally all the time how much do you pay attention?
NDT is a fricking FRAUD.
First of all he's not a Climate Scientist, he's a fucking ASTRONOMER.
That's like a cardiologist talking about cancer, while contradicting ONCOLOGISTS.
@@thepope2412 he even said the media was guilty of it so im not sure what you are getting at?
I did find myself landing into confusion . Did neil just contradict himself?
He said immense scientific research is needed and not just one paper or one scientific evidence on which laws should be legislated. While again he said politicians should not question the science.
Did he mean science in the later about the settled science? Or else it isnt wrapping around my head.
Exactly.
you got the wrong message.
Such a great point about no one questioning the science that got us to the moon. So why are we questioning the science behind climate change? Because special interest groups don't want people to believe the science because it hurts their bottom line. I love how he explained that what should be happening is the science should be taken at face value and the decisions about the economic impact should be discussed around the facts of that truth.
Sorry you're buying into this crap but it's a scam. The Earth is historically cold right now, not hot. Search "Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time/graph/images."
I was pleased to be able to watch deGrasse give an explanation on the climate
question only to be disappointed for a lack of information. No evidence to deal
with the current discussions, most of the allotted time was squandered. Not of
the substance and quality, I had expected.
@Ross You really need to look up the evidence yourself instead of having an unrealistic expectations about this video knowing from the beginning that it was only 5:28 long!!
It is CNN. Its an opinion piece.
Ross Smithers I disagree, Neil deGrasse Tyson did something far more important than explaining the science of climate change, he explained HOW to think about science in general. How do you know what is true. If you have no method of thinking about science, then any charlatan pushing a fringe science paper can convince you of anything.
Tyson explains that science is not arbitrary and that the scientific consensus is important. Science is not a buffet where you can pick and choose whatever you like. Climate deniers e.g. talk about climate science as something to believe in or not. But science is not religion. There is no belief involved. There are unproven hypothesis and then there are proven theories. The theory of man made climate change through emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel, is a proven scientific theory. Or just as scientific theory, as something isn't a scientific theory if it is not proven. Then it is just a hypothesis.
@Southtown Hick
> Povel Vieregg CO2 is not in fact proven to be a strong driver.
Yes this is proven beyond doubt. We can test how CO2 works in the lab. How it absorbs infrared light and re-emits it. We can further compare this with the wave spectrum of light captured in earth atmosphere by looking at satellite measurements and ground measurements. The signature is clear. CO2 is the main culprit. Every molecule has a clear signature in what it absorbs and emits.
> It has been proven that the oceans will emit it in huge quantities AFTER it heats up
Both are true. That is why it has such an amplifying effect. We see initial heating by e.g. the sun causes release of CO2 from the oceans. After that the CO2 emission accelerates the heating beyond what the sun would have done.
> It’s also proven that CO2 is logarithmic in its ability to absorb light, therefore it would take doubling after doubling after doubling to produce the current supposed effects
You are ignoring the fact that CO2 affects release of water vapor which is a more potent greenhouse gas.
> that is if it were possible for it to do in the first place.
We know it does. We got climate models making predictions for over 50 years getting predictions right. It all adds up. The climate models excluding CO2 effects get the wrong results.
If you cry wolf every year for 50 years, the wolf shows up, and you still don't listen to the boy, then you are frankly an idiot.
@Southtown Hick
> there are also peer reviewed papers that say the exact opposite.
That was exactly the point that Tyson made. You can always find fringe science. The point is that modern climate science is supported by a vast amount of papers and findings all collaborating each other.
> We can’t however say that CO2 is a main culprit because it’s a trace gas in the atmosphere and testing it at anything less than its actual percentage of the total would yield false readings.
That has absolutely no baring on the result. The quantities of CO2 is huge even if there are a lot more of other gasses. It is plenty to be able to read of a response in the spectrum.
> As to climate models, they are information driven,
What is that even supposed to mean? Of course models rely on data as input? A model is built upon our understanding of the physics, measurements and factors we have to estimate based on history matching.
> therefore you can make the model produce information at will.
No you can't. You cannot make an arbitrary model and make correct predictions.
> Models are very unreliable outside about 8-10 days.
Now you are simply confused. You are mixing up weather forecasts with climate predictions. These are entirely different things. Predicting an average temperature for a year, is far easier than to predict tomorrows temperature.
Compare this to predicting the outcome of a single dice roll with predicting the average value of 1000 dice rolls. The latter is far easier than the former.
> Have you ever wondered why 99.9 percent of climate predictions have been dead wrong?
I have not wondered about that, because your statement is 100% wrong. My whole point is that climate predictions have been dead RIGHT for 50 years.
Read this article for an explanation of how this works: www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
If not happy with this one, you can google it. There are many articles covering this same topic.
Not only have they made very good predictions of average temperature but also of secondary effects. IPCC sea level rise predictions have tracked actual sea level rise very well.
skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-intermediate.htm
Scientific Truth is not Determined by Consensus - Ask Galileo!
Nor is it determined by scripture or denial of facts.
@keefie80 "Hurricane and Typhoon activity has decreased". True but a bit misleading. The number of hurricanes and typhoons are expected to decrease, while the occurrence of more severe versions is also increasing. As in, less in total, but more category 4's and category 5's. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00417.1
@keefie80 Also. Please stop postulating what must be proven. I would appreciate sources because trying to find information on the topics you've mentioned is a nightmare. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. :/ it shouldn't be my burden to prove your point to myself
The scientific method allows for any study to have its methodology and findings tested to see if the results can be replicated idiot.
Scientists of the time new the earth was round etc. They were too afraid to admit it publically. Galileo was the one brave enough to say I can prove your Religious beliefs can be disproved. Galileo is the point in time where western science decided to put observable fact as a higher authority than political expediency.
Abe Lincoln signing laws in 1963 I think he meant 1863
And this was 5 years ago... have we continued to delay?