I really like how you approached this. I started as a strong skeptic, coming around the more I hear good scientific arguments like this, and I thought delivered this with a really even keel.

Hi Joe. Thanks for being the least polarizing as possible in your video. I would say I'm still 40% skeptical that sustained human generated CO2 is severe enough to create a mass extinction in the long term. I got some ideas that may need addressed to challenge my skepticism: [1] I've heard the argument that many terrestrial weather stations of which climate data has been collected around the world are located in or near urban environments. Average annual temperatures at some of these locations would increase partially due to the latent heat of increased rate of urbanization during the last several decades, possibly skewing the data considerably . (btw I do not remember when I read this) Obviously this stipulation wouldn't apply to buoy stations. Do you know if researchers correct for this when determining the warming trend? [2] do you know of research that argues that climate change is more pronounced the the northern hemisphere? I've read several articles that suggest that Antarctica has a lesser degree of ice loss (at least for now). Thanks.

Hey Joe, at the end of the video, you try to end on a high note with the Robbers Cove boys working together -- Can you do something on the CFC situation from the 1980s and the "ozone hole" created by it, which, since the CFC ban on aerosols, has improved significantly since then? I think it's one of those examples of where we noticed a problem, decided on a solution, and implemented it industry wide. I really want to know more about how that happened and how it might tie into the current Climate Change explanations.

Joe Scott , can you please address the issue of Obliquity, Eccentricity, and Precession. It is a major factor in our climate and they are variables no one talks about or considers insignificant to CO2. Also there is growing evidence that the magnetic field is getting weaker and will flip at some point resulting in increased solar irradiance, this weakening has coincided with the .7 degree increase in temperature. And toss in solar cycles. I think were heading into a cooling period and the CO2 is not the main factor in our climate.

Polarizing requires a belief in science ;) thanks for your videos joe

lol hilarious!!!

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHA!

That one ended up Lord of the flies style. That time it wasnt the adults. So im all for it especially since they worked together at the end using the dead ones as fertilizer. Great solution! (Jk no one died, then. It was the 50s a few are prolly dead now)

Haha! Very true

Wait....what....? Who did he say did the experiment? Did he say Jimmy Saville...or was that Bill Clinton? You know what....never mind! Nothing to see here.....this is not the droid we’re looking for. Go about your business.

I'd like to know the same too lol. And if its the case, can we do it without making it worse, or without making the cost of living 1000% higher

oh, you love cynism, thats so cool if you have 15 years in 1995

@@mrnuthatch7004 well yeah: dropping the profit motive!

I would have liked his energy if he was actually right. But unfortunately like most people who support climate change, they always fall short on the data. Unlabeled graphs that only show heating in a short window to give the illusion of an alarming warming period but, when you go back and check the actual data you notice this period isn't even close to the warmest time.

@@Micscience Yeah, that's not true. All the graphs that he showed (except one) date back to 1850-1880. That is about as long as we have been keeping weather records. How is he cherry picking data when he is presenting ALL the data? And that one graph that is the exception, it goes back to 1950. Not only is that still quite a lot of data, but I bet nobody was keeping records of that particular thing before then. Furthermore, every one of those graphs were clearly defined, there was nothing "unlabelled". There is nothing short or incomplete about the data. Look, at the end of the day, there are 2 options. try to reduce global warming or do nothing. If we reduce global warming and we did not need to, then what does it matter? We create a few new industries, and maybe give up a few luxuries for a worst case scenario. If we do nothing and we needed to reduce global warming, then the worst case scenario is that we get more extreme weather events that kill people.

@Gernot Schrader Sorry, but your rambling non-science is totally irrelevant.

entrenched or not. Its clear we can't solve the problem in any meaningful time frame. Because we already have arrived. Welcome to the post industrial world. RE;BuNK.. the world economy just took a 12 trillion dollar hit.. with 'the $cience' being used to justify. OUr world in Data is a great source: the actual science says. Humans being what they are, have come to the end of capitalism. 'What the $cience says' every time i hear that, i know its someone coming from a deeply entrenched belief system. #phyzordidnothingwrong. The question isn't is it real or not. Lets assume it is. WTF do we do about it?? Arizona, California, need to depopulate. Every scientist DRIVES a car. trains might make a dent, but anyone w cash wants a tesla. We ARE PFUCKED> So if we all begin to accept its real. If you have a family of 4. pick 2 children. terminate them. thats the solution or some other horrific authoritarian regime. You can't blame. HUMANS for being human. we need a Religion, or spiritual belief. A good place to start to look at the actual science is Dan BRit - we are already at 400. co2 is NOT linear .. after 600 pm it doesn't much matter how much more we add. We might have done something from say 1980 - 2000, but that window is now closed. and the future is unknown.. the Milankovitch cycles are actually real. and cooling would be occuring without the co2 buffer. Stop with the 'single cause fallacy' or straw man or whatever pfucking logical bumper sticker. we would have crashed into the next natural glacial cycle without the C02 bump. remember that prediction. it was based on sediment core samples that supported milakovitch's theory. and IF co2 had stayed at below 300 like it had been for the pre human era. the ice would have come again. but we dodged that bullet and now here we are. So which billions should die and who decides JOE??? you decide??? well i vote we terminate arizona and texas, southern cali and... new york just pick em out of a hat.. dead pfucking weight , i doubt that would fly - how could we implement. So you see the actual problem. is. We are human. and there are some things we weren't evolved to do. this is one of them. here is a real scientist who studied the cores. and explains thing pretty well. Dan Britt. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j-CVZLxy38WwiYE.html knowing the problem is one thing. but solar panels won't save us. a deep economic crisis that forces the world to live way low energy lives - might. or something else.. a 'reset' perhaps. the billionaires might be on to something. after the big die off. those that remain....can start over. with a new code.

I would trust 1990's scientist's over the year 2020 scientist's any day. Because back then scientist's were working for the betterment of man not for a profit motive. The waters wern't as muddy. Yeah the data has been better the last 5-10 years unfortunately no one is talking about how it seems like they manipulated the models to suit their data? The adjustments they did to the models suddenly fixed how the models were not predicting the actual raw data results.They were warned while they were constructing the parameters of the climate models that you have to account for the land configuration and other factors which they ignored when using the data of a weather station. Meaning only ideal weather stations should be incorporated into the models not the ones where thermostats are taking readings right near huge building air conditioners are located. Not only do I not trust the data the big tech companies are deleting old articles on the internet. Climate change is a reason to scare the population so the elites can implement a full societal overhaul which is what they have wanted for decades and people are falling for the propaganda hook line and sinker. Many people do not account how there is a crisis in the scientific community and that a lot of peer reviewed papers cannot be replicated by a better result more than 40% on average. You can't just take science as fact anymore you have to verify the integrity of the study. If people think that scientist's cannot be manipulated or that scientist's can't be corrupt you are naive. If doctors can be corrupt than scientist's can as well. I am not saying every model and every scientist is dirty but they have lost that benefit of the doubt especially now when our entire society structure lifestyle is being threatened and we are losing more and more freedoms. You might think that is a very negative approach but I can't help always spotting the propaganda. I try my best to not get caught in confirmation bias but I am only human. If someone had a better reasonable answer I would really listen but none of the pro climate change scientist's or proponents are speaking up about the poor conduct the pro side has been using to try and persuade the population why climate change is such a threat,which includes scare tactics.

@@Micscience there's really nothing muddy about record breaking temperatures being experienced all over the world year over year.

@@darylgraham4313 Well the funny thing is the highest recorded temperature til this day was recorded from Death Valley in the year 1913 at 134F degrees. Temperatures fluctuate all the time through natural oscillations of all kinds of factors such as trade winds, ocean water and more. Where I live the temperatures have gone down. On my birth day in June it was actually cold for the first time in my entire life. I do admit that the climate is acting funky but we can't jump to conclusions which is what it seems like is going on.

Cook, 2016, reported that 24016 papers support scientific change. Just 24 did not. When these were looked at, they had flawed methodology ( Myers and Twenge, 2020). Oh, it's now 99.97% in a later study. We don't ask if there is a consensus that earth orbits the sun. Its settled, just like climate change

​@@denisdaly1708 After listening to the endless sermon about "climate change," and then reading several hundred of the 15K+ comments about it, I can't find where "climate change" is specifically defined. But that lacunae triggers endless arguments, since "climate change" means different things to different commenters. That is largely the fault of the same folks who used to call climate change "runaway global warming." See what they did there? The problem with the global warming term is that global warming came to a screeching halt, practically on the very day that Dr. Michael Mann humbly admitted that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his heroic climate work. That's another fascinating story, but the subsequent climbdown from the frightening term "global warming" was so brilliant that it deserves its own Nobel Prize in Literature. By changing that scary term to climate change™ it no longer matters if global temperatures go up, down, or sideways. That, and everything else that happens is covered by "climate change." A hurricane? Climate change explains it. A drought in California? Rain in Texas? Climate change! I tip my hat to whoever invented that brilliant advertising masterpiece. Or gimmick, although I would never call it that. Hardly ever, anyway. So, can we please have a definition of climate change that we can all agree on? That would stop a lot of arguments in their tracks, since it appears that Dr. Mann's admirers think that skeptics 'deny' that the climate changes ("Climate change is real!"), while skeptics can't pin down what they should be skeptical about. As usual, arguments ensue. I'll start the ball rolling by proposing a definition that can't possibly satisfy everyone. That will make it easy to invent a better one. You might even become famous, and go down in the history books for your über-brilliant new definition of climate change! Therefore, I propose that the definition of "climate change" should henceforth be... [drumroll...]: Runaway Global Warming.™ You heard it here first! (but not really). _Anyone_ can do better than _that,_ no? OK then, gentlemen (and, well, you know), you may start your... definitions. Ready...? Set... _GO!_

@@boogathon It is a known scientific fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. Zero scientists disagree with that. Every year we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Think about that for a moment.

​@@dannygjk Think about _this_ for a moment, Dan: There are reputable, esteemed scientists who argue that CO2 does not cause _any_ measurable global warming. And if you still have your thinking cap on, here's some more brain taffy you can chew on: _Every_ wild-eyed AGW prediction made by "consensus" scientists turned out to be flat wrong; no exceptions. As an example, in the '90's NASA's James Hansen predicted that if the CO2 concentration increased by 40% or more, global temperatures would rise from 2°C, to 6°C - and even higher. Other scientists made similar alarming predictions. What happened? This: CO2 has continued to rise inexorably, primarily due to China's emissions (while U.S. CO2 emissions have steadily declined). Atmospheric CO2 has risen by ≈50%; far more than required by alarmist predictions to trigger a minimum 2°C rise in global temperatures. Were the predictions correct? No. _Every_ alarming AGW prediction has turned out wrong; no exceptions. Despite a much larger increase in CO2 than required by AGW-based predictions, global warming did not accelerate beyond the parameters of the past century; following the _YUGE_ increase in CO2 that began after WWII, there has been *no* acceleration in global warming. None at all. Think about that for a moment, Dan. What would an unemotional, unbiased observer conclude from those facts? Wouldn't our observer conclude that CO2 does _not_ have the hypothesized effect on the planet's temperature? Accurate predictions are the Gold Standard in science. If a prediction that's based on a hypothesis comes true, that hypothesis is provisionally accepted as a true reflection of the physical world. Nothing is ever proven in science - but a hypothesis can be disproved (falsified). Furthermore, it doesn't require multiple facts to prove that a hypothesis is wrong. Just one contrary fact is sufficient to falsify a hypothesis; any hypothesis. AGW (man-made global warming) has been repeatedly falsified, which is why the "consensus" argument is being used. The putative "consensus" is a fallback argument; a crutch to support the government's political goal. The original hypothesis stated that rising global temperatures would be triggered by rising carbon dioxide emissions. But by the late '90's it was evident that rising CO2 ("carbon") did not possess the hypothesized global warming effect, in particular because of the "Pause," in which no global warming was observed for twenty years. Something had to be done to rescue the AGW narrative. In a brilliant coup, the obsolete term "runaway global warming" was defenestrated and replaced with "climate change." That substitution has been a complete and resounding success. "Climate change" means different things to different people. It has no official, universally accepted definition, and since the climate always changes every individual weather event can be used to buttress the basic reason for both climate change and runaway global warming: when people are frightened they tend to open their wallets easily and with alacrity. The media is on board with the government's indoctrination. From the country's founding the duty of the Press has been to protect the rights of the people from government abuse. But over the past couple decades that has changed. The media now considers itself to be the government's partner, and that it's duty is to indoctrinate the population to accept the government's climate change agenda. Just six large corporations now control what people see, read, and hear. Those corporations promote the government's "climate change" narrative as a proven scientific fact, even though nothing in science is ever proven, and despite the fact that the AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. It's no wonder folks are repeating what they hear 24/7. They don't hear the other side from reputable scientists, so they make up their minds based on the information they're given. If the media was like it's been for the pasdt 200+ years there's no doubt the fraction of the public that believes the media's one-sided indoctrination would come to a much different conclusion.

@@boogathon Keep in mind a fake climate change scientists organization was created years ago supposedly involving thousands of scientists and an investigation revealed it to be fake. It was funded indirectly by big money. There were articles written about it and even at least one book. Finally as I said before the significant greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is a known physics effect it is not speculation it is not just a hypothesis.

Thats because you are a DENIER you heathen! Repent or be chastised!

How Dare You!

It's not CO2. It's just the C in all carbon molecule gasses and particulate in the atmosphere.

would you take a drink that was .04% poison?

Yes you are right. Water vapour is the real killer, and methane is 83 times as bad as co2. Oh and we are presently in an ice age. Just happen to be 12,000 years into a glaceral recession. They normally last 10 15 thousand years. Do I think humans are rising the co2 levels,,, YES

The Capacitor I'm glad it was just installing an update.

Misha that’s something that wasn’t mentioned in this video and is crucial to one’s position on the matter. I agreed with most of what he said in this video, but disagree with the implications. It isn’t a crisis. On the contrary, global warming has simply delayed the next ice age that is now overdue by hundreds of years. Once global warming is reversed, we will have to put all our resources towards figuring out how to survive the ice age that follows.

"According to a new survey of AMS members, 67% say climate change over the last 50 years is mostly to entirely caused by human activity, and more than 4 in 5 respondents attributed at least some of the climate change to human activity."

@@ArjaysJourney facepalm. Go read the global cooling articles from the seventies. All of it - not just the headlines. The next ice age isn't a thing.

@Don Robertson more is known today versus 50 years ago about global climate cycles. Reading articles written during the last 10 or 15 years will give better insight.

@@ArjaysJourney are you talking about the ''death'' of the Gulf Stream that would send Europe into a new Ice Age?

That's good, and absolutely the best way to do it. Unfortunately, there's also people who refuse to rethink their beliefs no matter how many facts you give them. So unfortunately I'm probably less patient than I should be some days, due to people like that.

You are so right, I had a lot of experience talking with people who believe in that kind of stuff. Even when you debunk everything they said, they will still believe that they are right. In fact, I coundn't actually convince anybody of those people.

Can you talk about how you came to be a skeptic in the first place?

@@johnseaverton1820 Uh, I guess my first exposures to climate change were alarmist (to me) hand flapping like An Inconvenient Truth or shallow blockbusters like The Day After Tomorrow. Sprinkle in a couple false facts (volcanoes account for more carbon emissions than humans) or faulty arguments, and it was easy for teenage me to dismiss it all as one more public hysteria to ignore, not unlike the various nutrition fads that come and go. But once you've staked your flag on a hasty position, it's hard to change it when people start becoming more vocal against it. The problem was that most folks immediately seemed to default to "you're an idiot." It made me feel persecuted, sure, but not convinced, or even likely to give the issue the kind of careful consideration I would have given to something less politically charged. The yelling and politics made me think about it less, not more.

@@Leavus1 wow. Thanks for sharing that’s really insightful to hear

We attack things that effect our bank accounts ..

@fynes leigh are you his imaginary friend?

Have government scientists finally got a plan to cure death?

"unless there’s a problem facing all of us" sounds quite optimistic.

Earth is a closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE

Kali Cosmos i think so

also because it is a terrifying topic for some people, politics aside. It's hard to have a sensible discussion with people who are scared out of their mind

@@Alistair true but if they weren't bombarded with fear mongering propaganda they wouldn't be scared

If the solution to climate change is to decrease co2 emissions I believe the solution is quite sensible, stop burning coal and switch to natural gas and nuclear as this will also lead to safer and cheaper electricity. Basically a win win. How many climate activists are pushing for this?

@@kalicosmos1509 Fear-mongering is being used by extremists on BOTH sides of this and indeed most issues which have become politically or ideologically charged - like guns and the "social safety net" for example. The trick to researching and understanding what's REALLY happening, to the best knowledge of scientists active in relevant fields, is to tackle the issue in dispute with as open and unbiased a mind as possible, and to use LOGIC, combined with as accurate information one can find, to figure things out as best as you can.

That's pretty much it. And it applies to the so called "science" and the people who deliver it too.

But that's not actually true. Maybe it's true to some extent in the US, but not in general.

@@luke-alex It's true across the world. Brazil is a prime example.

@@luke-alex You're right. I don't know how it is in other countries, though I'm sure it is as hotly debated in most countries as it is in the US, even if it's not split on political party lines. But it's nearly universally true in the US that your party affiliation dictates your position on climate change. This makes me skeptical, not of climate change itself, but of the motives of extremists on both sides: the deniers as well as the alarmists.

@@fredashay What is debated in much of Europe is not the question of whether it's an issue that needs addressed or not, but of which specific policies should be implemented to address it. And it's really not any more contentious than other political questions (less so in many cases).

It's true. We only get one Earth, might as well try to take care of it.

Correctomundo, compadre. But we _NEVER_ hear that from the True Believers in the "dangerous man-made global warming" contingent. They make Jehovah's Witnesses sound reasonable.

@Који Курац Is English your second language? It's hard to understand what you mean. If you mean Jay B and me think alike, we have a saying for that in America. The acronym is: GMTA.

Would you be willing to risk your prosperity, your lifestyle, your economy and devout trillions of dollars and decades of sacrifice on the basis of ideas that could be wrong?

@@Pooua It's done all the time.

@@boogathon Mostly by crazy people. The majority of the population needs a good reason to risk their well-being.

"Science is the belief in collective ignorance of experts" This is a quote of Richard Feynman that hits the nail right on the head. Whatever advances have been made in science over those of antiquity have been made over the objections of the existing experts on the subject at hand.

Well said Aj

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Who is being quoted here?

@@russellmillar7132 Michael Crichton

no, people's tendency to cling to beliefs rather than believing things that have been scientifically proven is the problem, not the educational system

The video poster contributes to this by claiming that science works on consensus. 6:54. False. It works on facts.

@@austin3789 The interpretation of experimentally confirmed facts often depends on consensus. Your comment is beyond useless and I really don't see why you thought it was clever or productive at all to this discussion.

@@sapphireblanche7823 Please, find me any version of the scientific method that includes the step, "Achieve Consensus" or anything like that. Did you sleep through science class?

@@austin3789 Did you not make it past high school "science class" (lol cause that's definitely a class title). The scientific method has no single accepted definition btw. But ummmm, the whole process of peer review (you know, the thing that is fundamental to modern scientific knowledge creation) is essentially looking for a consensus that your experiment holds true. But like, what is even your point anyways? Are you taking a stance against the concept of a group of scientists agreeing about the facts and declaring their agreement on the facts? Is that what you learned in "science class?"

@ Dude, stop sending a link to that Heartland Institute video. You´re making yourself look stupid (that video has been mocked, debunked and ridiculized by many scientists by now). Climate change is not open to debate in Europe or Asia... Because we all know is 100% real, we´re already facing it every day (every single citizen).

@@gabrielp9646 All you did is post your hatred. We don't "know" what you seem to believe is real, and the government loves people who say "climate change is not open to debate." Then why are you debating it here? Your mind appears to be made up and closed tighter than a submarine hatch, but maybe someone else can benefit from the following facts: First, changes in CO2 always _follow_ changes in global temperature. That happens on both long and short time scales - from months, to hundreds of thousands of years. Since an effect cannot precede it's cause, CO2 cannot be the cause of any measurable global warming. AGW has never been quantified. There are no credible measurements that separate global warming caused by human emissions from global warming from other forcings, like the planet's ongoing recovery from the Little Ice Age. Without _any_ measurements that quantify global warming from human activity, how do you know if human activity causes any warming? The answer is, you don't know. No one does. Therefore, the debate is not over. If you believe that, why even debate here? Because you hate people you can't refute? Or is there another crazy reason? Your attitude makes no sense without facts. Got any? Or is it all hate, all the time?

Well, we know the risk for sure: $20 TRILLION dollars to "fight climate change." The risk is Zimbabwe-style inflation. That's a HUGE risk, larger than anything we've seen re: climate change.

@@boogathon Please, come back after you understand what global warming means. You clearly think it is the same thing as climate change, and if you don´t even know the BASICS... xDxD For the record: Global warming doesn´t mean "the earth is getting worm", it´s an specific scientific effect. Global warming is when high amounts of heat get through the atmosphere (because it´s thinner than usual) then the earth, the rocks and the trees absorb that heat, and the high density of "pollution" in the air doesn´t let it out. It´s basically what happens when you leave your car under the sun: a ton of heat gets inside the car, the seats and the plastic elements absorb that heat, but the heat doesn´t have any way to get out... Turning the car into a FURNACE. That is global warming, and it has literally NOTHING to do with CO2 xDxD And a side fact: I happen to work at the instrumentation department of a thermal power plant (I think you just have bad luck xDxD). A BIG part of my job LITERALLY is to meassure how much CO2 we´re putting out there every day, and report it periodically to the government... Your whole "there are no credible measurements" talk is pure bullsh*t (or mental masturbation). You literally made me laugh out loud with that part xDxD But tell all that cheap cr*p to the people of Spain or Australia, who have been seeing their entire countries BURN in the past 5 to 10 years, in a way that 90 year old people can´t remember EVER happening. Or simply call a meteorologist, Im sure he/she will be happy to explain to you the basics of what CLIMATE CHANGE is, and how it works (again, global warming is a completely different thing, a scientific EFFECT that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2, but with oxygen and hydrogen... In fact, CO2 is HELPING against global warming, letting less Sun rays get inside our atmosphere... The problem with CO2 is that it kills people and animals with cancer. Again, you don´t even know the basics xDxD)

@@gabrielp9646 explains his definition of global warming (AKA: climate change): "Global warming is when high amounts of heat get through the atmosphere (because it´s thinner than usual) then the earth, the rocks and the trees absorb that heat, and the high density of pollution in the air doesn´t let it out." It's amusing to read the convoluted nonsense emitted by people so frightened of global warming that they fabricate such nonsensical rationalizations for something that has yet to be quantified. I blame the media's indoctrination when I read irrational comment like this: "...the people of Spain or Australia, who have been seeing their entire countries BURN in the past 5 to 10 years, in a way that 90 year old people can´t remember EVER happening." Where do you get your misinformation from? Seriously, I'd like to know, because it's so preposterous. The earth's average temperature has remained within ±1°C for more than a century, which means that wherever there's a (natural) warm spell, another area must have had a corresponding cold spell. Otherwise, the planet's temperature could not have remained flat, as it has for more than a century. QED The "climate change" scare used to be called "runaway global warming." But after twenty years of the "Pause" in global warming, "runaway global warming" was looking more and more like complete nonsense. Something had to be done. That 'something' was changing "runaway global warming" to "climate change" - a brilliant move on the part of the gov't/media complex. As we see from Gabriel P's blustering pseudoscience, "climate change" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. For example, Gabriel says: "In fact, CO2 is HELPING against global warming, letting less Sun rays get inside our atmosphere. The problem with CO2 is that it kills people and animals with cancer." See? Heads are being filled with errant nonsense like that, which proves my point: "Climate change" can mean anything to anyone. There is no official definition; no universally accepted description of that über-vague term. Thus, it serves the gov't perfectly by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt among people who don't know any better. Finally, CO2 has never been implicated as a cancer causing agent. That's just more errant nonsense. The U.S. Navy allows sailors to remain in an atmosphere of 5,000 ppm CO2 continuously for 4 months, and in atmospheres containing 1,000 ppm CO2 indefinitely. That's 2 ½X to 12.5X more CO2 than in the air we normally breathe - but the Navy has no reports of sailors contracting cancer from breathing air with elevated CO2 levels.

Pushkar, you need to specify the time frame. For example, from the 1940's into the 1970's global temperatures _declined._ When CO2 was rapidly rising, global T declined for _thirty years._ That blows a big hole in the "More CO2 Causes Global Warming" conjecture, no? It absolutely does, because one contrary fact is sufficient to falsify a hypothesis. Arguing that "CO2=AGW" produces a lively discussion, but from the 1970's on that discussion has been political, not scientific. It's interesting observing the effect that the mainstream media's monopoly has on what much of the country currently believes. That would never have happened if all other points of view were not marginalized, or completely censored out of what's now amusingly labeled 'the news.' Recently there has been a lot of discussion about "critical thinking," and naturally everyone likes to style themselves critical thinkers. But before that assumption is made they should consider an undeniable fact: the group doing the critical thinking must have immediate, prompt, and equal access to _all_ available information, no matter what the source is, and regardless of how preposterous some of the group believes any of the information is. The important thing is that the group tasked with arriving at a reasonable conclusion and course of action must have prompt and easy access to _all_ facts, conjectures, points of view, and observations that are related in any way to the problem at hand. But when all points of view, observations, and facts contrary to the problem are censored out, no action is preferable to actions that are based on erroneous/wrong conclusions. That's where we are now, due to the media's censorship. The media is deliberately doing a serious disservice to the country by refusing to provide any information that would contradict it's (unstated) goal. Today, _every_ U.S. television network is controlled by just six large corporations. Every TV station broadcasts only the information (the "news") that those six corporations allow it to broadcast. Worse, the same television stations and networks cannot broadcast any information that is proscribed by the networks' owners. Thus, viewers never see any information that conflicts with, or is contrary to the message being broadcast. In this case the message is that "carbon" is pollution, and "climate change" can be controlled with sufficient tax revenue. But media censorship applies to a wide range of subjects, not just to 'climate change'. Some people may even agree with one-sided media assertions. But how do we know they're valid, when every contrary fact and observation is censored out of the discussion? Media censorship makes critical thinking impossible since those six corporations are all in agreement. There is no competition between them. The result of their collusion is government-approved propaganda. The government certainly would have intervened by now if it opposed the collusion of those six corporations, so the fact that the federal government has not intervened is a clear indication that it approves of what those six corporations are doing; deliberately misleading the people by broadcasting only selected information, and by censoring any information that contradicts their favored conclusion. We The People are being controlled by a few big corporations. Is there any doubt, when the message they broadcast is identical? The same collusion happens in the print media, and on the internet. Free speech is a thing of the (recent) past, since Facebook and its partners in crime appointed themselves as unelected censors controlling everyone's speech. Why does the federal government sit idly by, watching as the country's free speech is destroyed by these unelected co-conspirators? Why does the gov't take no action? Does anyone doubt that the government would have already charged those corporations with any number of violations, if it disagreed with what they're doing? The federal government and big business are partners in this "climate change" propaganda. The government cannot take away our right to free speech, so with a wink and a nod it allows its partners to do its dirty work. Does anyone _not_ see the approaching danger?! If this censorship is allowed to continue the outcome is crystal clear: just like in the old Soviet Union, there will be an aristocratic group ruling it over everyone else. And if anyone presumes they'll be part of that special group if they just suck up, they need to be reminded that in the USSR, those holding a Party card were well under one-half percent of the population. Everyone else did exactly what they were told to do, and no complaining. There were unpleasant places for complainers, and it didn't matter whether they were cheerleaders or critics. Like Cthulhu's disciples, the cheerleaders' only reward was to be eaten last. The country is a lot closer than most people think to that outcome. This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives. That is just a diversion. The real battle is between those who intend to be our rulers, and the rest of us. If you look at what's happening through that lens you can see it clearly: Billionaires who should be grateful to this country for providing a framework of freedom where they can become immensely wealthy, have almost all become supporters of this new world restructuring, because _they_ will be one of the rulers. But you won't be and I won't be, and no one either of us knows will be one. So, are you going to roll over? Or fight what's clearly happening? Time's getting short, my friends.

​@@boogathon This was ages ago, I'm aware, but I know a little about this so: No, it doesn't really tell us much about CO2's affect on the climate. That temperature drop from 1940 to the 1970's? It was caused by human-produced aerosols like sulfur dioxide building up in the atmosphere and preventing some of the sun's heat from reaching the lower levels, near the surface. Naturally, this information was spread by non-scientific press reports who wanted to make it seem far bigger than it was, and a bunch of "The ice age is coming!" type headlines started popping up. The actual scientific literature of the time, contrastingly, worried instead about trends of human-caused global warming, which was evident even over a longer time scale. Also, about censorship - there are hundreds of scientific papers (many of which have been disproven, I'm sure) that are publicly available and denounce climate change. You are able to come on the internet and spread your thoughts on it, and this comment has been up for a year. Plenty of people publicly spread similar ideas, and it's easy to agree with them. It seems like they have reasonable arguments, and the common civilian of any country just doesn't have the knowledge to disprove it. I would ask that, in the future, you come at issues like this with a more open mind, and try to look at them in a more objective sense, though we all struggle doing that sometimes.

@@Roxxyie @Altroxx , thank you for your thoughtful reply. I try to keep an open mind, within the context of real science. I'm sure you would agree with that, since without rigorous science anyone could invoke magic as an explanation. The central problem is the one-sided media, as I explained. The same media allows the UN's IPCC to ignore the Scientific Method, when it should be holding the IPCC's feet to the fire. A corollary to the Scientific Method states that if a hypothesis is falsified once, it proves that hypothesis does not reflect reality. When a hypothesis doesn't reflect the real world its creator(s) have a choice: they can either "go back to the drawing board," and re-formulate their hypothesis, taking into account the fact that Mother Nature has ruled that it does not describe the real world. Or, they can simply accept Mother nature's verdict, content that their falsified hypothesis shows other scientists that road is a dead end. The IPCC has done neither. Instead, it digs in its heels and continues to insist that "carbon" is the cause of all climate change (by which they mean that CO2 emitted by human activities is the cause of all global warming). Thus, the IPCC deliberately ignores the Scientific Method. But why? I am not assigning motives (although I personally suspect politics), but it is a fact that the IPCC's hypothesis (actually, it is just a conjecture) has been repeatedly falsified. For one example of many, just prior to our current 'climate,' the Holocene, CO2 levels remained consistently below 300 ppm. Yet global temperatures fluctuated by _tens_ of degrees, within just a couple decades. What caused those episodes of rapid global warming and global cooling? It wasn't CO2, which remained flat. And since physics doesn't change, those observations decisively falsify the conjecture that the fraction of atmospheric CO2 that is attributed to human emissions cannot be the primary cause of global warming. Since the end of WWII CO2 levels have steadily ramped up, but global warming has not occurred as predicted. Mild global warming has been observed, but that is probably just a coincidental correlation. The real question is never asked: why is every television network broadcasting the same talking points? And why are other points of view censored? Once indoctrination takes hold, the individual rejects any other explanation. That is what is happening. We see it everywhere. Tolstoy explains it better than I can: *_I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives._*

Huck Yah!

Heeeyyy it's Jesus!

idk how do you get verified but.... hey! it's jesus

Bejeezus, it’s Jesus in the flesh!

we worship your shadow

Michael Wade conspiracy against the sun, rage against the machine... What next? :D

1993: Neurosis - enemy of the sun. Except its apocalyptic doom metal.

.... huh, I like that... but my self-respect prevents me from taking it. Quick, make it a thing so I can reference it in a fictional story.

Not so far off with Offspring really I guess, if you mash up Conspiracy of One and Staring at The Sun a bit. =d

sounds more like a new wave band name

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!!!🤣🤣 I swear the next ones I meet...are gonna get played this video. 🤣👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

For scientists, proof is always necessary. Lacking that, all you have is a faith-based belief system. A religion, in other words. Not saying religion is bad, only saying that proof is elemental to the scientific method.

Thats way too simplistic. The real question is --- are the consequences going to be as dire as predicted. The sea level has actually fallen the last two years and the temperatures have been no where close to what has been predicted . The warming thus far has been a little less than 1 degree c. The sea levels have risen just a few millimeters and that has stalled the last couple of years . I think we should focus on more pressing matters like plastic in the oceans .

brucewilson77 Stop looking at cherry picked data. The ocean levels aren't falling... You can look at the past two years and see a short dip(and the ocean levels are higher now then when that dip started), but it goes up at a steady pace if you look at the past 20 years. You will see dips like this happen from time to time, but you can see the average rise. It's very clear...

And to add to Valban if the oceans/atmosphere goes up just two degrees c that's dramatically changes everything. And it's snowing in the middle east as well as sandstorms blowing over where it should be snowing! birds and bees are falling outta the sky it's biblical!....wait. Apparently it's also around that time of the millennium when the poles reverse which means a weakened electromagnetic field...so...perfect timing?

Totally agree.

Of course it's not based upon consensus. But since there is an argument about consensus, he wanted to clear it up. Also, most average people simply do not have the time nor the effort to go through the scientific literature.

You should read some Karl Popper. Your understanding of philosophy of science is lacking.

Mmmm yes indeed, infloobidy doobidy flubbabwootidoopy.

While consensus is not a valid argument, it gives a pretty good approximation of the topic --> if many scientist come to the same conclusion, chances are this conclusion is right. Of course as a scientist, this doesn't mean anything to you, you check the methodology and the data.

How about we edit that statement so it is more accurate; "Scientific KNOWLEDGE is based upon the consensus of evidence and data." A bit more wordy but more accurate and uncontroversial? If you have a critique let me know.

Indeed. We're going to need the plastics and other materials made from petroleum resources, instead of just burning them up. We can't mine petroleum resources from other planets, moons or asteroids. The operative word in "fossil fuels" is fossil. As far as we can tell so far, Earth is the only place in the immediate neighborhood in the Milky Way that has had the level of life necessary to become a useable amount of petroleum resources. What we have now seems to be all we will ever have. Clean renewable energy is the way into the future. Nobody want's to live in pollution anyway.

@@tanners885 They're delicious.

@@tanners885 see Potholer54’s video “A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming”

Wow. Those who strongly need to belong are also eager to exclude. I can see it out there now that you mention it.

heretic!

Harvard? Yale? The Congressional Black Caucus?

I belong to hermits international.

Says who?

I'm intrigued. Which video was that in?

@@BruceHurley Hello Bruce. It was Ask Joe Episode 1. Joe's come a long way.

Welcome to Milankovitch cycles

Too late, they were saying that in the 1970's!!!

Dr. Mann's Penn State Hockey stick climate graph took off in the 1980's, which indicated global warming. But I moved near a Penn State branch campus in 1981. I first noticed that the climatology weather station was in the corner of a parking lot, as far from the buildings and cars as possible, and surrounded on 3 sides by a meadow. It seemed to me the best place for such a weather station -- as far from the buildings and cars as possible. The next year, however, they moved the climate station to the middle of the parking lot, next to a big building, and directly underneath a big air conditioning exhaust far. At the time, I simply thought that the temperature readings might be a few degrees warmer now, but the students could dash outside without their coats, write down some data on their clipboards, and go back inside in the winter. What if they moved the climate stations to a warmer spot at all 20 Penn State campuses across the state? (call me misinformed)

​@@nietzscheanmiddleman9832 I've majored in biomedicine, but I also have bachelor's degrees in earth sciences and geology. If I were to voice my opinion on climate change, I would be regarded as uninformed, since I haven't exclusively specialised in climate studies, regardless of the fact that I've studied near everything there is to know about climate and how humans influence it. Near everything is saturated with gross global warming propaganda which is used as a quick get rich scheme by spreading misinformation - nowadays it's in the form of pawns like Greta Thunberg and other influencers... When studying such delicate topics you might want to pay a lot of attention to the true meaning, significance and wording of the studies surrounding those topics. It's true that global warming is real, but humans barely affect it, It's nowhere near as alarming as it's portrayed, there is almost nothing we can do to effectively halt it, but most importantly it's a complete waste of time and other resources to worry about. I apologise for my poor grammar skills as English is not my most refined language.

How do you know? When everything you have been taught has been brought to you by an incestuous media so consumed by ideology and it's own way of keeping score it's unable to have rational discussions. Their is a very good chance everything you know is hogwash.

@@user-ye6mc3nh4g ok. You have given us your opinion, now show us your evidence.

@@lestermarshall6501 I second this motion. I am open to the possibility if it has evidence

Subtle...

Yes of course it is impossible to know the extent of the contribution but it is a known scientific fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. Zero scientists disagree with that. Every year we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Think about that for a moment.

yes 100 scientists drop the mike , mike falls down 100% consensus among scientist s

I like Nobel prize winner Richard P Feynman's definition best. He said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

So, science would be to ignore your doctor when he tells you to quit smoking? Because you believe in his ignorance more than his expertise?

It can, but the consensus follows the evidence.

@@dracirnagainnif7894 No you see someone in that group will say that you flew upwards and the mike did not move.

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary and those who don't

Freedom being a bad habit? "They seek us here they seek us there...those enviros seek us everywhere. Are we in heaven, are we in hell, we damned elusive pimpernels?"

@@brucefrykman8295 Really? I always thought that freedom wuz just another word for nuthin' left to lose. 😉 Sink me.

@@brucefrykman8295 addendum... how dare anyone suggest that I want Anthony Worral Thompson to quit smoking; God no, I want the guy to smoke MORE! 😆

@@PercivalBlakeney I'm familiar with Baroness Orczy's work as well as Leslie Howard's screen adaptation of it. But, sink me, you lost me on this one.

@@brucefrykman8295 Dear Bruce, Sorry for the late reply and thanks for getting back to me. Okay... this is about as concise as I'm going to get (my ADHD being what it is). Here goes... There are a couple of running jokes in the Vegan community right now. First, [ahem] the best advert for Veganism, currently, isn't Stella McCartney, Peter Dinklage or Greta Thunberg; the best advert for Veganism really is *Piers Morgan*. Response... "but Piers Morgan isn't Vegan, as a matter of fact he speaks out *against* Veganism." Counter Response... "Exactly!" The other joke... Piers Morgan thinks that we want him to go Vegan; this is untrue. If Piers Morgan goes Vegan, according to the research, there's a good chance he'll live longer... and I'm not sure that ANYONE wants *that*. Hardly a Christian attitude but still funny, hein? Now, Anthony Worral-Thompson; when the UK's smoking ban came into force, some decade and a half ago, he was one of its most vociferous opponents. "We should be allowed to smoke in pubs, bars and restaurants" he said. I remember listening to the radio as he continued, "There's no connection between passive smoking and cancer... *there's no connection between SMOKING and cancer, it's all a matter of genetics*". My respect for the man, at that point, dropped even lower... into negative figures, even. His justification for carrying on smoking? "Why should I bother quitting smoking when the traffic fumes are probably going to get me anyway?". No surprises that Worral-Thompson objects even to Vegetarianism, let alone Veganism. Like I say, I don't want him to quit smoking, I want the guy to smoke MORE. I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment. Bill Hicks has (had?) a memorable comment on the USA's Firearms' debate. "With all sides making different arguments for and against, there IS a far larger segment who have yet to say anything... They call themselves 'the victims'... and they remain strangely silent on the subject... no-one knows why". In other words, personal choice only extends as far as when it infringes on the rights of others. (Consider BAT's words that 'I believe Nicotine is not addictive'; more tellingly, Gov. G. Wallace's words on the steps of the University of Alabama... lifted in no small part from Alexander Stephens's notorious pamphlet to the Abolitionists). Take a listen to Bill Hicks's 'non smokers' routine and then understand the similarities with Joe Rogan's 'anti Vegan' schtick. Whilst Bill was being ironic and funny, Rogan was just having a bitchfest against 'low hanging fruit' and expected to be taken seriously. You see where this is going? Anyway, if you're still reading this, thanks for getting through it. Hope the concomitant headache isn't too insufferable. Best wishes and stay safe. 😌

I mean, most climate change deniers don't understand seasons from what I've seen, so

Ya bro did you not notice we had like no winter this year, there was like three snowstorms

@@marcobrace happens all the time, not that unusual

No it's not; this is a joke. Two planets meet. The first one asks: "How are you?" "Not so well", the second answered "I've got the Homo Sapiens." "Don't worry," the other replied, "I had the same. That won't last long."

@@johnperic6860 He didn't describe climate, he described weather. Learn the difference next time

Agreed. But you also need to admit that the U.S. alone are using about 20% of the world’s oil supply and have the highest fossil footprint per capita in the world, even though they only represent 300 million out of near 8 billion people on the planet. So China and India couldn’t even go the same route if they wanted. The planet just wouldn’t support everyone using this much fossil energy. Sure, China does pollute more in absolute numbers but they also have like 4 times the people.

The US isnt the main problem, but they are not only a major contributor, but also a country that has the means to "lead the charge"

@@dominikfrohlich6253 And the rest of the world buys American products that are made with that 20%, so what's your point? That other countries should stop importing our products? If the demand is there, someone will supply it. Also, the U.S. output of CO2 is steadily declining, while China's is inexorably rising. Finally: CO2 does not cause the claimed global warming. That has been proven repeatedly, with empirical measurements and by the failed predictions of groups like the UN/IPCC. If they were honest scientists they would stop promoting the lie that "carbon" is harmful. The fact that they continue to lie about it indicates that their message is based on politics, not on honest science.

@@boogathon so you are saying that CO2 is not the problem but China is bad because their CO2 output is growing while the U.S. is good because theirs is falling? Your logic eludes me

@@boogathon Umm... No. I was able to make the connection of atmospheric carbon saturation and increased global temperature from a highschool physics class, and we weren't even studying climate, but materials science and the way carbon reacts with UV (it doesn't) and IR (it does) radiations. It's super simple. Wherever you got that information from is either on some fossil fuel payroll or some science denying religious kook, using pseudoscience to dupe scientifically ignorant yokels into supporting their interests... Fossil fuel industry; $$$. Religious kooks; the end of days and $$$. Objective reality is under no obligation to conform to your likes, dislikes, wants or needs. But you are most certainly subject to the effects of objective reality. Burying your head in the sand won't put out the fire, your brain will just be the last part of you to burn.

97% of scientists back in the day believed the earth was flat. And they were wrong, too.

@@iangpark Hundreds? More like thousands. Eratosthenes had (roughly) calculated the size of the earth more than 2 thousand years ago. This involved observations hundreds of miles apart. Which is important because even attempting such a thing in ancient times means he was already very confident of the earth being round, so that this knowledge was likely hundreds if not thousands of years old already by the time of his life in the 200's BC. There is no era in the history of the earth where 97% of scientists believed the Earth was flat. Because frankly anything that far back, they would be more philosophers than anything we'd recognize as scientists.

@@nunya9555 Rubbish

@@nunya9555 Care to provide a little evidence for that statement?

Nunya when was "back in the day"? Even the Ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.

👍 You can trust the scientific community. It's a very easy problem for them to be certain is happening. The hard part is determining what are the specific range of effects and where.

Do some research! check out the UNPCC. reports by the best climate scientists in the world, stop listening to the OH so loud mining industry mouthpieces. If your sick you go to a doctor NO? that is qualified because of 'science'! so if the world is sick consult with the scientists NOT the commentators! If you want to learn anything do you go to the drunken fool in the gutter? NO you go to a teacher! If your in the USA I hope you will vote for a realist and NOT for a 'squawker' like the Germans did when they though they had found a 'messia'

Suicide is the best treatment for ignorance

I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure.

@@Dibleydog 😂

Clive Baumann Any mention of how those hockey stick graphs ALL came from two sets of data? Ice cores before the knee and tree rings after? Any mention of how scientists using ONE set of data over the same period detect NO hockey stick? Hmmm. . ? [waits. . .sips coffee] Yeah, that’s not happening.

@@SuperDachshund 110%

This statement you have made demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophy of science. I would recommend you check out Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's work. Their wikipedia articles are a pretty decent place to start.

@@aslanfrench Thanks. I won't read that, I don't think... only because I have a lot of other studies on the go at the moment. All I know so far is that many of the assertions underlying AGW lead me to straightforward questions that I cannot find decent answers for. And it baffles me that scientists who present data and conclusions that do not support AGW are not given air time in the mainstream conversation. The truth is, I suspect, more complicated than the current AGW narrative would have us believe. That's all.

@@davemulcair7117 The reason that scientists with relevant expertise in the subject aren't given air time is because they dont' exist. If you look at even the most strident expert critics of the IPCC etc they often only question specific aspects of methodology or unimportant side aspects of the conclusions and never do you see an expert actually disagree with the core tenets of the current theory. The fact you think otherwise is because you have been mislead by people who are trying to make you think there is greater disagreement over the issue than there is. They are doing this because it makes them money. Please don't be a sap. Also it's hard to find straightforward answers because science isn't easy. It's very hard. And the fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus on the basic conclusions of climate change theory should indicate something important to you.

Consensus meaning numerous experiments confirm the same observations over and over again. So yes consensus.

​@@michaelrenouf9173 - this process is called peer review. Not consensus. Peer review is when a set of independent scientist repeat the experiment and concur with the first study. A "consensus" is defined by whoever reads the words. It can mean that people voted and they agreed on something (rare), or it can mean there is a peer reviewed study that the study is concluded to be true, or it can mean that someone read a ton of abstracts to a paper and omitted more than half of them, then counting all of the ones that said nothing in his favor only to sway the number as close to 100% as possible while not seeming unrealistic and leaving it at 97.1%. If the peer review success rate was 97.1% we'd have a conversation.

I feel the same about God

Exactly. It doesn't matter if you think co2 caused the melting of the artic ice because real science knows it began melting in the middle of the 1600's. It certainly doesn't care what alarmist zealots believe.

@@roberthicks1612 yes it's been melting for a long time. But recently, the RATE of CHANGE has been much, much higher than normal. We humans have accelerated climate change and processes that should take hundreds or thousands of years is taking mere decades now. Humans are going to suffer because of what we've done to our climate. Animals are going to suffer even more. Why do you think it is so wrong to be concerned about our planet and it's ecosystem? Wouldn't it be better to change our habits now, to be prepared for the worst, even if it doesn't happen?

"But recently, the RATE of CHANGE has been much, much higher than normal." really? 60% disappeared in 60 years, and 30% disappeared in 55, and its accelerating? "processes that should take hundreds or thousands of years " Evidence shows that glaciers retreated as fast during the mwp and the rwp, if not faster, yet you think it should take thousands of years to do it? Where is your evidence that it is happening faster now than it did then. It certainly isn't coming from Glaciology peer review magazines, since they have not published in magazines showing any change. "Humans are going to suffer because of what we've done to our climate." Why should we? Co2 is responsible for a 16% in food production, and there is not one prediction of disaster that has happened. The equator is barely changing in temperature, but the increase in co2 is decreasing the size of deserts because the plants need less water. The sea is not rising any faster, and it isn't rising fast enough to be a danger to the vast majority of humans. Even in areas that there is a risk, human knowledge can mitigate that. They talk about the sea covering islands, but look what china did with 3 reefs. They created their own islands. If they can create islands, why cant we raise islands that already exist? Do you have any idea how little it would cost compare to the other things they want to claim we have to do? YET no one wants to do them. Many of those islands are no more than sand bars and sand bars move. They also compact when you put weight on them such as buildings. YET despite the fact that these are real facts, they want to blame it all on American so they can get our money. You tell me any one of the alarmist talking points and I can tear it apart with real facts and real logic. "Wouldn't it be better to change our habits now, to be prepared for the worst, even if it doesn't happen?" There are a lot of habits we need to change, but not for the reasons the alarmist say. 1) fossil fuel will run out at some point, so we need to be looking to the next technology. 2) Gas powered cars are not that clean and the result is hydrocarbons hitting the atmosphere in levels that are dangerous to humans. There are a lot of hydrocarbons that are hitting the water in levels that are dangerous to marine life. We need technology that doesn't put these hydrocarbons into the environment.3) people are obese around the world and a lot of that comes from too much fatty meat. We do need to change our habits here too. Yes, we need to change our habits, but we need to make the choice using real facts and real logic. It should not be forced on us or have some government in another country making those decisions for us. THAT is the liberal agenda.

Who or what was that aimed at?

Because there aren't any..................."Joe".

"The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections." climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1983/

Deny that one.

So how do we predict climate patterns while we are fucking with the climate and how we are doing so is unpredictable?

@@Ag3nt0fCha0s by using large systems of partial differential equations and energy balance equations. You test usually with methods such as hindcasting from various different eras in our last to see if the output of the model matches actual data from the past.

Sun luminosity? Lol you really trying hard to sound smart It doesn't change significant enough to warm up earth within 2 century dummy

Glad to see someone else with a link of sense in here. Whew!🌻

Most academic papers have multiple authors...

The 97% is a figure the author came up with BEFORE googling the data. The actual validated figure is 0.3%. Man made climate change is a marxist ruse to destroy the west.

It is not 97% of peer reviewed data, it was a selected few papers that mentioned the fact that man could be influencing climate change. This statistic is the most bogus published number in science.

@@fivish : That's almost comically dumb unless it's meant as satire... please tell us it's satire.

@@48Ballen : That is false. Surveys have been done many times and the consensus is not only that high, all legitimate scientific organizations agree. I don't know who you're listening to but they are full of it.

not trolling... just happy to see the reasons why we humans like to blame the other side for abuseing climate carbons and not being controlled taxed and aborted so that we can have less carbon that comes from humans who are dumb and producing carbon.... THOSE HUMANS need to be gassed or die of a virus if you think about it cause they are denyers of climate changing and global warming. If we thought like this... we wouldnt even know it... in fact meanwhile while we think we are superior for being a climate change accepter... we know we are better. arent we? its so funny how we forget things too. CMEs and explosions from a sun that could just burp and incenerate all life on earth with a licking flame that reaches as far as mars is very possible because they have been happening in the opposite direction of earth recently and we have just been pretty lucky so far. 8 min ago it could happen and by the time we realized it... it would be to late to tell anyone. thats a myopic view of global warming and climate change.. but 2000 years ago weve been warned by a promise of a rainbow. its not going to be some silly flood, this next time it will be a unquenchable fire that kills off every living thing on the planet. SCIENCE SAYS SO by looking at stars exploding and cmes and watching asteroids collide and kill planets off. Suppose Jupiter misses a few asteroids that are big enough to tbone earth... we wouldnt see it until it was to late because they dont exactly shine... it would be cool to laugh at while blaming all those denyers about climate change and how more people need to die and or be taxed to death to go homeless and stop producing carbon. The nazis liked to do that too. so lets join up with them and use our super uber control of everyone to demand control and manipulation... we can make money and taxes off of the backs of poor people by selling them books and science channels about climate changlings. But it could be better if a super volcano could go off and cool the planet because its important to come up with ways to super cool the earth by 20 degrees instead of whining and complaining about climate change. Who is the denyer? the person who only wines about climates changing from winter to hot summers... or perhaps they come up with sollutions to push the earth several hundred thousand miles further out of its natural orbit. Perhaps forcing the cooling will be the reason to build a bomb to put into a super volacno and drive the climate into an ice age. WE NEED TO QUIT BLAMING HUMANS AND START CHANGING THE CLIMATE TO BE COOLER... TO many humans use cars so killing half of the population with a virus like covid 19 is cool. If i was dr Fouchi thats what i would do and produce after i tested mers and sars which are created and similar.

Wow, I could not have said it better! I am a Conservative Republican and I KNOW global warming is a true thing being caused by humans. BUT, I do understand why we dropped out of the Paris Climate Accords for the reasons you stated! WE (the USA) ALWAYS pay, Pay, PAY for EVERYTHING where other VERY RICH governments (if you can even call some of them that…) that refuse to fairly “pitch in”. I’m so tired of people labeling Republicans as people who think climate change is a “hoax” because that IS NOT TRUE! Or that we are “anti-vaccine”… I believe it is each person’s CHOICE to get the vaccine (that is no longer working on MANY people) and that the government has ZERO RIGHT to force ANYONE to get it or to penalize ANYONE who doesn’t get it! My parents and even my adult son got the vaccine but my adult daughter, teenaged son and I do not want it or need it and it is OUR choice. I have had Covid-19 twice along with my daughter and my two sons have had it. We have the antibodies to protect us against it! Even my doctor specialists tell me NOT to get the vaccine! I have MANY illnesses that says I “should” get it but the actual virus never put me in the hospital or made me feel like I was the sickest I have ever been. I’ve had worse FLU viruses and a couple bouts of pneumonia that made me feel worse. Anyway, I agree that a globalized government is the very WORST IDEA I have ever heard of!!! Our government is SUPPOSED to work for US, NOT the other way around! We need to get the life long politicians OUT OF WASHINGTON! They do not care about you, me or our beautiful country! They are money hungry millionaires and billionaires who want EVEN MORE MONEY and they don’t care that it’s coming out of OUR pockets! Have a great evening and I hope you and your loved ones are staying happy and healthy! 😁 Love from Texas ♥️🤠🌴

@@robynsmith4164 *"...I KNOW global warming is a true thing being caused by humans."* May I ask how you came to know that?

@@bricaaron3978 Read the comments under Joe Dennehy's post above. I posted a rudimentary explanation of the cause and effect process. It's easy to understand. I managed to put it together back in highschool from an organic chemistry class I got a C in, and AP physics, and we weren't even studying climate science, but material science. And I sure ain't no geenyus. I am a little drunk though. 🤘🤓🥃

@@robynsmith4164 I am a Progressive Marxist and I can spot a fellow Marxist from across the internet ether Robyn. Well said, by the way, comrade.

@@bricaaron3978The government told him and he thinks they never spread bullshit. The Tuskegee airman trusted progressives and paid the price. At some point in time government always turns predatory.

stinky pinky you clearly didn’t watch the video. Joe literally debunked all the myths and yet we still have idiots like you commenting

@@ImBored-ov2zm We will always have them. Until the ocean starts destroying coastal cities they'll forever deny climate change is a thing.

@@blksmagma No, they'll just blame the Dems and Hillary. Or Obama. They're already doing it. Houston is literally fucking sinking from the rains and they're still circle-jerking to the same old beat. They're turkeys staring at the rain with their mouths agape, not even registering themselves drowning. Lemmings, even. They'll never change.

@@Sun-ut9gr so tropical storms don't drop enough rain to water the soil? come on man. with doctors publishing diagnoses also have to prove treatments and also have results to get funding. climate scientist get funding for for what? repeating failed models(the icebergs are still there and oceans levels haven't washed florida into the ocean). also on the nitrogen argument you might want to look into legume family of plants that introduce nitrogen into the soil. larger plants mean more small plants in the shade producing diversity. this hole climate change bs sounds nice for for the layman's but once you start breaking it down it falls apart.

@@kevincornell1439 it's clear that you didn't get the main point . Anything in excess is harmful . With Lesser resources and more people there will be wars if we don't change old business models . Taking too much away from earth causes disbalance .just the way if you are given too muvh oxygen you can't handle it .

and they spend a fortune of flood mitigation just like London did and sorry all that sun will melt your dingy

G H the great Dutch Delta works is your answer.

You needn't have bothered: Obama bought a $15 million ocean side mansion a few months ago (nice place, you should see it www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45ffgg/blue-heron-farm-chilmark-ma/#2b90538b417f ). Seems he's not all that worried about rising sea levels after all. In the mean time China is burning between 5 and 10 MILLION TONS of coal a DAY (depending on who's numbers you want to go with). Even if the US reduces its carbon output to 0, China will still be there at full steam ahead. Without China FULLY on board, no climate solution is going to work.

The Maldives Islands were supposed to be flooded 20 years ago. The Saudis are investing millions into the islands now, I wonder why.

@John King - Why would anyone who doesn't believe the climate change hoax, bother to confirm that a climate change statement actually exists? I wouldn't believe wikipedia if it was the last reading on the planet - and Julian Assange will back me up on that.

Lots of people are getting rich off climate change. “Green” companies are surging like crazy and growing faster than the research can validate them.

fynes leigh I feel sorry for you my friend. The illness you are suffering from is dangerous and life threatening. Please seek the proper treatment and don’t be embarrassed to ask for help.

And if there were no money involved, you would say: "Look! There is no money involved! Nobody believes this shit! There would be hundreds of companies selling their solutions if there were some hard evidence about this." Truth about green money hoax: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hpiRadmWmdqtfHk.html

masalli is an example in Canada they shut down a project for high efficiency waste incineration plants that would have supplied clean power with low emissions. These plants are successful in many other countries and Sweden boast 34 of these plants themselves. Instead the government moved to wind turbines that barely move and do not produce anywhere near the amount of energy needed. That being said the coal plants that the High Efficiency Incinerations plants would have shut down are still spewing pollution in the air and these wind turbines sit there looking over the vast lands. Investigations have found out that politicians got paid handsomely and CEOs raked in the cash while the citizens are no better off and scrambling to find somewhere put their waste. My point is if you want to make real change you have to do it honestly without any hidden agendas. Do we want a cleaner world yes. All of us do but while you or I type our comments on Smart Phones built in countries where pollution is horrendous and isn’t regulated. You have to see the hypocrisy of supporting places that create pollution far exceeding the global average all while handcuffing countries trying to do their part.

@@ryana3679 How does government inefficiency disprove climate science? Governments make stupid decisions on every subject know to man. Why doesn't government waste disprove any other branch of science? Why only climate science? Why isn't all science faked because of government bureaucrats?

that’s why there is this thing called statistics. One data point at any given time is useless. Millions of data points over a hundred year time span can tell you about a trend in global average temperature.

110 % 😆😆😆

The urban heat island effect is a real thing, but I wouldn't be too concerned about that having an impact on the overall picture of climate change, which is indeed a definitive reality. Temperature measurements, in addition to being land based and in a broad diversity of locations, are also satellite based. Satellite readings are not going to be affected by the urban heat island effect when taking global average measurements.

These changes in temperature you're feeling are very small, climate change takes an average temperature from a large amount of locations over a long period of time to build a trend graph and we see a sharp increase in temperature corresponding to the industrial revolution and increased CO2 emissions being polluted into the air.

Exxon Mobil is a well managed corporation. Some of the countries they operate in (France, Sweden ) require companies that operate there to actively deal with switching to renewable energy. They are exremely smart in hedging against alienating these governments.

People will counter that argument with the fact that under higher CO2 conditions, nutrition levels of our crops actually drop. This really is true. However, the increased growth rates and hardiness against drought more than makes up for the nutrition loss.

@@jozjonlin3170 That's pretty cool, I never knew that.

@@Arch3an Because it's a dimwitted lie from a moron.

What was it that made you think an education was "optional"?

@ That's a little hostile, don't you think?

Same here. That's usually when a discussion/debate tends to go south and become.... heated.

And all the failed end of the world predictions, "There will in no more snow by 2016" -Al Gore 2006. Gore, you'll remember, also famously said “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years." That was in 2008 I haven't been to the North Pole in awhile, but I think it's still covered in ice. Btw, he wasn't making this stuff up, he was getting it from the 'experts" Remember, we only have 12 years left! But still not one of these experts/high profile preachers of doom are calling to ban private jets...wonder why?

Science said the numbers. And what now? Will you just look at them and gaze? Or take action?

Nah. We'll be dead

@@zaynmavrik4922 unless we focus on studying and maybe even reversing the deadliest and completely incurable disease: aging. Buuut yeah we're probably gonna die before that.

That is maybe even not enought time, give us 5000 years and don`t forget your wooly socks.

according to that eco fascist girl from Europe, will be long gone

@@transporterIII "Eco fascist girl"? You mean Greta Thunberg? She hasn't taken any direct action yet beyond activism, yes, but she definitely isn't an eco facist--which is a sub-branch of facism that may or may not exist. But that's besides the point: she's not one.

Communism is the answer. ✊

Communism is the only way to be fair

@@caredenttbg4310 There was orders of magnitude greater inequality, aka unfairness, in the Communist Soviet Union. There is, TODAY, a far greater inequality, aka unfairness, in Communist China and Communist North Korea, than any capitalist society.

@@caredenttbg4310 Lol, name one communist society that was "fair". Capitalism is the best way to lift large numbers of people out of poverty which actually sounds pretty fair to me.

please cite one example of unchecked capitalism in the last 100 years?

Point for point he is all proven wrong here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pb-YdrSnmtqyo4U.html

And chemtrails, and Jews, and the government...

EXACTLY and ask a FIREMAN - PARAMEDIC AT THE DEADLY EFFECTS OF HEAT IN OUR CITIES DEADLY

You do realize today's scientific theories will be undoubtedly dis-proven by "science" in the future? I mean, years ago "science" stated the earth was flat. Whether you believe it or not...science is wrong

@@JB-cd6gn They had shitty technology. We are more advanced now and can do so much more.

@@dr.sliver9583 Exactly, you've proven my point. Todays shitty science and shit tech is the only lense we can judge the world by, just gonna take us 20 years to realize it

@@dr.sliver9583 Still havent solved the issue of the plastic continent we created in the Pacific, cant stop trying to top and kill each other. Real advanced buncha animals, we humans

If Joe is right in all his other videos, maybe he is right in this one too and you are the one blinded by politics.

@Који Курац No, I believe the scientific consensus. And, yes a scientific consensus is a real thing.

@@johnw7278 ^Projection^.

Ok. Basically the ocean is a heat sink. Humans create more co2. The current rate of increase is faster than any natural cycle. Feel free to prove me wrong.

@@mathewtickner Prove that you are right. There is no natural cycle.... our planet does weird things, what we do is very little of it. I don't think us using oil is the problem, I think the removing of the great forests of the world is the problem. We are becoming cleaner, greener, more efficient, but if the forests are gone that's when we are done.

@@kevinkarbonik2928 That's a good point, ask the Alarmists to prove that they are right :D

CO2 is broken down in the ocean into c and 2o where the c sinks the bottom and the two os either find a h to bond with and makemore watter or whatewer is the easiest molecular bond. At no time is there co2 being released from the oceans into the atmosphere.

pyro pyro I'm afraid your chemistry is a bit off. Yes it is true that CO2 forms carbonic acid when dissolved in water which reduces the pH like so, CO2 + H2O => H2CO3 => H+ + HCO3- Yes there is a spare proton to bond with carbonates present in the water, so carbonate (CO3-2) is simultaneously consumed by reaction of the excess of hydrogen ions produced from the reaction above which is expressed thus, H+ + CO3- => HCO3- The net effect is; CO2 + H2O + CO3-2 ↔ 2HCO3- The two major categories of dissolved carbon in seawater are referred to as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), but most origins of DIC are biological in nature, so the question still remains to be answered whether the 4% human contribution to CO2 is having a significant effect on climate change. Because the reactions run simultaneously, both pH and the availability of carbonate are reduced as the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises. These reactions are reversible and what overall carbon load remains in the oceans will inevitably fluctuate. Carbon does not build up endlessly in the oceans, it also gets released back into the atmosphere, though there may be net gain or net loss overall, depending on multiple factors, many of which are still far from understood, or remain to be discovered.

No one said that. When an overwhelming majority of scientific research finds the same conclusion then that consensus is a relevant metric to consider. There are still a few scientists who believe in a steady state universe, yet the vast majority support the expanding universe model. This consensus among physicists is relevant, just as the consensus among climate scientists is relevant.

it takwes maybe 1000 papers to prove a theory but it takes only one paper that proves it false. thats how science works. You test the theory to fail and more times it didnt fail the more times its likely to be true but it never is absolutely ture. But if its tested once and you dont get same result under same conditions it is false.

Take a closer look at your local weather, do some of the temps you see seem odd? Mine do.

Thats because everything humans do is tribal and political. The idea of objective truth is just downright silly.

So True ;-) I think mister Popper called it verisimilitude; the appearance of being true or real - that's what we are competing for... or in modern parlance " the winning paradigm has the best marketing".

Rejected study proposal: "Quantifying the effects of carbonized tobacco on malignant cancer cells." Accepted study proposal: "Quantifying the effects of climate change affected carbonized tobacco plants on malignant cancer cells." - If you want funding, you better get with the programme. (University of Nottingham, UK - 2009)

Very nice... and If I hypothesize that the "climate change affected tobacco" has a measurably greater disruption to the cellular metabolic processes... I may get funding for a comparative study! (Do I sound like a slightly jaded research scientist?).

You're full of crap. You think they profit from affirming global warming. What nonsense. Where did you get that strange notion? You pulled it out of thin air, apparently. Or did you see it in crackpot right-wing media?

@@FrankCoffman If the science is settled - why aren't they all let go? They sure aren't very inquisitive to keep collecting pay and accomplishing no advancements. I can hear your Homer Simpson "Doh" right now. LOL

@@politicalfoolishness7491 ~ "Political Foolishness" is a good name for you. I guess you think all scientists should be let go when theories are settled. I suppose you also favor firing all biologists, physicists and geologists, too. Foolishness indeed. That's you, pal. You seem to be an aggressive uneducated ignoramus, a la Homer Simpson. "DOH" fits you.

@@FrankCoffman Re-reading your comments and mine - I think you hold the title of aggressive. As for your opinion of me being an uneducated ignoramus, I really don't care.

@@FrankCoffman Are they all volunteers like me, who educate science illiterates for free ?

​@George Orwell and your problem is you don't understand how science works. The thousands of statistics and data presented arn't just guesses... They are observations. They are literally proof at the most basic level. It blows my mind how people like you think. You don't think the periodic table is a lie, you don't think the statics of Mexicans crossing the border is a lie. Yet you refuse to believe something with mountains of evidence, more evidence than there is for the existence of atoms... LItteraly all you had to do was go outside this year and see for yourself. Boston froze over, The UK, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Japan, china, new Zealand had their worst heat waves yet. Italy, Germany, france had their worst winters. This shit doesn't lie and it gets worst every year. I mean were you in a coma??

@George Orwell The problem you have is that you eat up anything you are told without thinking. Explain why you don't believe the statics? I would like you to disprove it all, if you can do that you win. The problem is you can't. Because you are just another sheep. You like to question what you have been taught, which is a great thing. However you actually have to have a reason and logic as to why you disagree. Otherwise you voice is meaningless. You can't just not listen to someone, or certain people because you don't like them, and then let politicians and the news and one guy who doesn't even have a science degree tell you what to think........ Btw a person with "normal Intelligence" Wouldn't be disagreeing, you either haven't read anything, or you can't interpret data.

@Mike Mckay ok. *slow clap* for the pun-itive measures you went to.

@@georgeh1226 The UK had a heatwave whats new we have them periodically 1976 was a scorcher i was 14 at the time we survived though, obviously,we had one in the 90s as well we survived that one as well.We had a few cold Winters in the 60s soon after "scientists" told us the world was doomed as another iceage was approaching thing is that was 40 odd years ago ,funny how things change isn't it.

ja ja ja :D Me Too!!

Dave

Have a Joe with Joe :)

Such milking power.

Pootoompish, lol

This isn't true the earth was on a warming climb before we cause it to drastically speed up. However if you watch his video "4 megaprojects that could reverse global warming" there may come a day when the warming and cooling of the earth is controlled by us.