My favorite rule of thumb: if something is complicated and big money is involved, then you can expect fraud and corruption.

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."

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.

"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.

At the beginning of every disaster-movie there's a scientist being ignored.

People will cherry pick anything to suit their selfish beliefs. They cherry pick the bible They cherry pick science They cherry pick morality

It's interesting how 100 million years ago there was 5 to 10 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and yet plant and animal life was larger in size and more abundant. The temperature was fine for life, nothing was drowning from rising sea levels, and there were many ice ages since then.

Yeah, with my ex I wondered: Should I stay, should I go. I stayed, I died.

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.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclaire.

3:53 epic rhyme

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

"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.

"When science doesn't fit someone's world view, they deny it." - Bill Nye

arguments from authority and from majority are recognised as cognitive biases which cut no scientific mustard

"You can find a scientific papr that says practically anything." Nuff said.

No matter your position on the climate, please limit what you throw out as in plastics & chemicals :D

97% of Pompeii residents believed they angered the gods.

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.

Abe was alive in 1963, pretty amazing.

Have you ever tried cherry picking? It's hard. The birds eat the good ones a day before youd pick it.

as an witch doctor I'm offended and outraged

"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.

Problem is you have one party that will vote against anything even if it’s not in their interest to do so

You can't cherry pick science unless you believe the smartphone you are watching KZfaq videos on is powered by magic and not decades of rigorous scientific innovation.

Anyone denying science is also denying progress.

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.

Ah yes 1963, the good 'ol days of the Lincoln Presidency

i can't believe this is still a debate, i mean am i the only one exhausted by this still being a discussion?

Lincoln lived a lot longer than I realized.

I didn’t know Abraham Lincoln was signing legislation in 1963 , he’s so smart

The danger of knowing some information but not enough to know that you don't know what you don't know.

"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.

only in america these things are questioned

NDT is a perfect example of social promotion.

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

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

Fareed Zakaria looks like the Indian version of Willem Dafoe

I lived on the an island and I never saw the water rise year after year. I can't believe any of this.

"Abraham Lincoln signed into Law in 1963..." I'm sure he made a mistake, anyone catch that?

"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!

Scientists should run the country

1863*

When I hear Neil, I hear preaching and I don't even go to church.

"People say, 'Look. There are still questions.'" There are still questions about _gravity._ It's _existence_ is not _among_ them.

How does taxing American citizens a billion dollars fix this?

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.

ha! 😂there's a hurricane, i don't know, should i stay, should i go.... deGrasse bars

Considering that flat earthers still exist in the 21st century, getting universal acceptance that climate change is real will surely be impossible.

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!

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.

Greenhouses produce power using sterling engines, heating, cooling, distilling, and climate albedo cooling, plus carbon sequestration. You can also grow a tomato.

1:46 Uhhh think you're about a century off Mr Tyson

He said 1963 instead of 1863.

Nope. Truth is not built by consensus.

It rained so what? ..so what about the SHOCK of the decrease of Hurricanes for the last decade?

Two things come from politics mixing with Science: One bad politics and two worst science

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.

0:46 I think he is dying of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

Why would anyone think it's not acceptable to ask is something is right?

I got an ad about thus guy before the video started lol

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

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

The weather is crazier now than when this was originally taped. We didn’t listen and we are not going to.

1863.. I don’t mean to be that guy but someone had to say it

Oops! I think he meant 1863 - not 1963!

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

Seems a pretty fair debate , explaining why the person who is not in the room, is wrong .

Neil is the type of person that appreciates you for asking a good question.

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.

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?

If its a fact you don't need a consensus.

"The day two politicians are arguing whether science is true... It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."

You don't have to be a "scientist" to use your ability to reason.

And this was 5 years ago... have we continued to delay?

Tony Heller is sometimes shadow-banned on KZfaq. I wrote an article on this. You can easily find it on the website of my Stanford University office.

The purpose of science is to constanrly question. "Settled" science is the oposite of that.

"Science is never settled........PERIOD" Quantum physics certainly is not.....just one example.

So if we start out with a lie but are in “consensus” it becomes true

At 1:04 I agree, it takes lots of papers before you can come to a concensus. So how much climate reasearch grant money evey year is issued to disprove the the theory of AGW/Global warming via co2?

I can't believe that Ben Shapiro bad mouths this wonderful person Neil degrass Tyson

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.

"Lincoln signed into law in 1963" Lincoln (walks in wearing bell bottoms)

Very true in saying people, and press cherry pick to make what they want believable. For something to be true, it should be backed up with evidence. As he said, Scientist are still learning about this world everyday.

“Sometimes... science is wrong”-Mac

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.

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

Here we are 4 years later its December 13 and it cold with snow on the grow .

Scientific Truth is not Determined by Consensus - Ask Galileo!

Neil DeGrasse tyson is a legend!

4:52 me at school...

Cherry picking happens everywhere and it is such a shame

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.

Neil deGrasse Tyson for President. Can you imagine how cool that'd be????

How much money does he and CNN make on climate hysteria?

1:45 Abraham Lincoln time travels to 1963 to sign science declaration 📜

Y’all: “OMG GUYS DID YOU HEAR HIM SAY 1963 INSTEAD OF 1863”

I thought he wanted to say cherry picking is bad, meaning media shouldn't use 1 warm day to freak out over global warming.

Did he say Abraham Lincoln signed in 1963? Don't think he was signing anything in 1963.

tyson is an Astrophysicist who has probably spent zero time studying the excellant US climate data, which shows clearly that the US is cooler than 100 years ago . All thanks to Tony Heller for making this tempreture data available online. 50 years ago climate alarmists were predicting that a new ice age was imminant .