As instantsurgery said, we don’t know what ignited the big bang (universe). And this isn’t a bad thing. It shows humility and honesty and creates the driving force for scientific discovery. But yes, because we don’t know we can not 100% rule out god as a possibility. However There is no evidence for god, thus no reason to believe is was a god and would be scientifically dishonest to say it was god because there is no evidence. If you still wish to believe it was a god, you may, but please realize that that requires faith. And all the modern conveniences that most of society enjoys were not created by faith. I’m not against religion/faith necessarily, just when it steps outside its realm and interjects itself into science.
Stanley Goddard my parents were two pack a day smokers. My mother could actually circular breath her cigarettes smoke. It left her mouth, flowed up her upper lip and back in her nose. I’m not a smoker. There may be no links because the scientists where latterly silenced. I’m not going to research it any further. My parents told me smoking was not good for me, even though they were addicted.
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.
@Boony Tooty Except they didn't change their mind. Just because you read some article in the newspaper, doesn't mean shit. Science has never predicted another Ice Age any time soon. The global warming was the mainstream science since 60ties.
On the matter of scientific consencus: In a formal reaction to the book ‘Hundred authors against Einstein (1931)’, Einstein responded: “Why hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.
That's bullshit. Einstein just repeated what OTHER scientists were already saying; and then in 1950 the propaganda-press gave him credit for it so that Russians couldn't claim they did it.
@@michaelbartnicki9464 "so what", said you. Translation: Truth doesn't matter. I've been shocked, shocked I tell you, that it took me over 50 years in life to realize there are people who don't care what's true or not true. Anyway, have a nice day. :) Disclaimer: It was a figurative shock.
Gary Hawkins Firstly, you’re playing the “gotcha” game. Shame. Second, how does discrediting Einstein and blaming Russia make your argument any more relevant? I’d like to see where you got the info on that.
WafflyNimb Yeah usually the "lone nut job" scientist who goes against the government consensus panel of expert's. Who are actively hiding their blunder that is causing whatever crisis is now arising as a result. Lol.
alblanzjr , exactly. Which is why all these scientists are getting rich writing books and making appearances regarding a theory that they don’t truly believe.
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
There can be valid and properly executed science, but no science is true. In science, there is no assertion which could be true or false, the assertion or theory comes later. This is the position that no scientific statements are true, it is called scientific nihilism.
Your an idiot. There is no actual hard evidence humans are the cause. None. Neil is basically saying well these 100 say this and these 11 say this so we go with the 100.
Tyson may be a smooth talker and can spin a good story about how CO2 will be the death of all of humanity and most animal species, but if you fact check just a little about his fraudulent parroting of the easily refuted claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that human consumption of fossil fuels is the major cause of "Climate Change", then you can see why his ilk is deathly afraid of debating the top critics of their Climate Armageddon fairytale. I'd much rather put my trust in a dark asian witch doctor because their "hotness" is real! ;)
But we don't make important decisions or come to conclusions with just one scientific paper. Michael Manns hockey stick data was corroborated by over two dozen follow-up studies and then affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, for example. We should never trust one study, no matter the subject.
Right, it was proven that Exxon was funding anti man made climate science studies after realizing the disastrous effects of fossil fuels several decades ago.
@@ericmanget4280Fossil fuels. Do you think dinosaurs leaked all that oil out? Do you think man can change the climate of the entire planet when it is mostly water?
@@karlklein2966 This is the most idiotic reasoning I've read yet.... Anthropogenic climate change on the scale we're doing is absolutely capable of changing the planet. The main contributors are fossil fuels emissions, cattle rearing due to the methane, deforestation releasing thousands of years of stored carbon from old growth forests, and feedback loops such as the majority of the arctic ice melting which would otherwise naturally reflect the sun's light/heat. Go look up what's happening to Venice, it's literally underwater right now: ua-cam.com/video/QhaSeJu_mVs/v-deo.html&ab_channel=FRANCE24English. Were you asleep all of 2020? There were raging wildfires that turned the fucking air sepia toned across North America and Australia: ua-cam.com/video/ccpg_1kilIA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake%3ANow. The arctic is shrinking at a rate that it'll be gone in a few decades. The coral reefs across the world are all being killed due to the ocean's rising PH level from climate change. You think this is all just a coincidence that it's all happening within a ~century of the industrial revolution?
You get crazy people in every profession. Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't suffer from mental health or be influenced by greed. You're obviously going to get the odd scientist whose papers are not accurate, but as Tyson said, you take things seriously when a large number of scientists are in agreement.
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
While global warming is real what he's saying I think is we need open debates on all sides to figure out how much of climate change is being done by humans vs natural progression.
David Foster not when they weren’t educated on the idea of Gods. Unlike climate scientists they were clueless. If a 97% majority believe that’s the way an evidence is pointing it suggests 3% do not have the prowess to back up the claim. Simple.
David Foster again not a valid claim, religion is a faith based claim, whereas climate change is done totally off data and evidence. It’s a silly comparison
"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.
The response to Covid was gross overkill. Any reasonable post pandemic analysis concludes the unintended consequences far exceed any positives. The unintended consequences of course were obvious and suspiciously censored.
You can't cherry pick science unless you believe the smartphone you are watching UA-cam videos on is powered by magic and not decades of rigorous scientific innovation.
The entire scientific compendium is based on magic occult practices. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton without the Corpus Hermetica...there would have been no scientific revolution.
You are cherry picking right now. Your smartphone may be an example of a scientific technical achievement that you appreciate, but what about all of the things created by science you do not appreciate. Global warming itself has been caused by science.
Global warming is caused by the Sun, Jupiter, Earth's magnetic field, the dust cloud the Sun has been moving through that we are beginning to exit, and cosmic rays. Not burning gas and farting.
"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.
@@Islamisthecultofsin 5 million people believe we dont need Oxygen to survive its a good thing thats only 0.71% of the population... and possibly a convenience there all dead. 500 in relation to what? and even so the particulars matter "global warming does not have a consensus" of what?
"Denying science" is not a thing, people don't even know what science IS, America is so dumb, but arrogant because it gets idiots and perverts famous on TV. Meanwhile in the history books, it went against climate change, and is the reason people will have to thank the EARTH as a whole is fucking hellish to inhabit in xx years b/c half a moronic country voted a reality star in b/c they thought he was "tough" and "cool". idiots!
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission. What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings. The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2. By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
In 2019 when Al Gore's catastrophic global warming prediction has been proved to be a lie and NASA had no choice but to release temperature data showing that the earth has been under global cooling since Feb 2016, both Al Gore and Neil deGrasse Tyson sound like driveling fools to be so certain about global warming. There is no consensus among scientists regarding global warming. There is only consensus of among scientists sold out to the global warming scammers. VIDEO: The truth about global warming VIDEO: 25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists VIDEO: 30,000 Scientists 9000 Phd's - Sue Al Gore Over Global Warming FRAUD.
@@simon6071 The Earth has not been cooling. The trend is a warming one. Where do you get your information? Because it's flawed. If you can provide evidence from a scientific source I would be more than surprised. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools. As for the 30,000 scientist petition; It is misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science. If there is sanity in question here it has to be that of those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus. The science on climate change is solid. The counter claims are shoddy, and easily debunked. Which is why so many personal attacks are made on scientists, along with those who support them.
@@danzel1157 VIDEO: 8 Climate Change Predictions PROVEN 100% False VIDEO: Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction. A British high court ruled there were nine significant factual errors in Al Gore's "inconvenient truth". The court cannot lie about Al Gores predictions being correct when they failed to come true. However, his film is still allowed to be shown in schools because the globalists want Al Gore's fear mongering to continue. In the USA, the fear mongering is continued by AOC who claims the world will end in 12 years due to global warming if the USA does not stop using fossil fuel.
@@danzel1157 When scientists see solid evidence of NASA ans NOAA tempering with temperature data as showing in the video "Corruption Of The US Temperature Record" and "Arctic Sea Ice Nonsense - The Media, NASA and NOAA Blatantly Lie To The Public", they don't need to be climatologists to tell people about it . When Al Gores prediction of catastrophic global warming failed to come true, we don't even need to be scientists to point out Al Gore's fear mongering BS.
@@danzel1157 Google: HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD "When Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired." Don't you realize how self-contradictory and biased you are? AL Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. He is just a con politician who made a bunch of fear mongering predictions of catastrophic global warming to get rich through carbon tax while pretending to be an environmentalist and the global warming sheeple like you would idolize him as if he were the the top authority in climatology even when his predictions failed to come true and even though he is a hypocrite who uses twenty times more electricity than ordinary American families. VIDEO: Al Gore's Inconvenient Hypocrisy
lazyperfectionist1 nooo one is denying climate change idiot. But notice how what idiots like Neil never call it by its real name.. "ANTHROPOGENIC climate change"/MAN MADE climate change. Real easy to paint your opponent as a kook when you're being twisting definitions. That's like someone arguing gravity isn't due to the fabric of space time but is instead due to XYZ law. Real easy to label him a "gravity denier" when he is no such thing. He is not denying gravity, he is denying your hypothesis of what causes it.
dab0331 ,,,you ought to take a squiz at the current views of ozzy political leaders. I don't agree with their bs, but they are rather efficient at quashing the effectiveness of those who try speaking against them. Gotta respect insurance choices apparently. aiw,,p.
Flat earth of round earth, nobody can explain that! Rides go in tides go out, you can't explain that- Bill O'Reilly Neil deGrasse Tyson: *chuckle* Actually we can.
Are you denying the climate science or accepting the science as true and struggling with the best ecoomic approach to address the warnings and obvious devastation?
Jrouche the science is not settled, it’s a theory, and a bad one... water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than co2. And even if it were a settled theory, the US is not the largest polluter in the world. Even worse still...the largest polluter here in the US is the federal government, and if you think for even a second that they are going cut back...well you’re not very bright. I do agree however that we, normal regular people can do more to prevent pollution but that brings me to my original question...how does taxing US citizens a billion dollars fix this?
Jrouche no one is denying climate change, the climate is always changing. But pretending that the WORLD IS ENDING in 12 or 11 years whatever dumb number it is, is just a lie and fearmongering to just get elected. The same people who want to end climate change are driving their cars everyday, eating beef, not recycling, and they want others to do something about it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
@@bo3inprofilepic292 No one ever claimed the world was ending in 10 or 12 years, your misinterpretation is the lie or misapplied data is what politicians and theocrats use to muddy the waters. If you actually listen to climate scientists and even well informed scientists in other fields such as Neil Degrassee Tyson you wouldn't claim the world is ending in 10-12 years.
This is the best analysis I've ever seen on the unfortunate and dangerous phenomenon of non-scientists inserting themselves into the scientific process. Neil rocks!
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change. Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below: "For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes." Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works." Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
Tom Right? I love these UA-cam schizophrenics who just use the Internet to further deepen and cultivate their mental issues. Jokes aside. I do Infact think that it's problematic.. It's like a crazy person can find another crazy person and they can all agree with each other. Some weird validation. Anyway done with the rant have a nice day.
A fundamental issue like the climate crisis has not only the potential to annihilate us, it has the potential to serve as rift within societies, split them along political and economic lines and therefore accelerste such societies' slow downfall.....
0:45 Copernicus had a scientific paper that took hundreds of years for a majority of "Scientists" to accept. Science is not conducted by consensus, it requires proof.
It requires "proof" that is falsifiable and a body of work that is actually allowed to be published that attempts to falsify that proof. The mere fact that you can't publish a work where you outwardly attempt to falsify man-made global warming, is pretty bad and unscientific; HOWEVER, we're beyond that... Not only are you denied your right, your role necessarily as a scientist, to subject a study to falsification, but the mere notion, the intention to do such, results in career suicide....that means, by default, man-made global warming is not science. If it were, there wouldn't be only a "2-3%" of papers with dissenting opinion. Science isn't a goddamn Democracy, and it can't be subjective within a study, but also it can't be subjective in managing the body of allowable studies. 2-3% is a clear indication there is pseudoscience happening. Every single study published has to name it's potential faults, where it could have been improved, and the limitations of the study....in order to yield to falsifiability. 2-3% doesn't cover those weaknesses - 20-30% would still be low. If it hit a 30% falsification attempts published and they couldn't do it, maybe...maybe I would say man-made global warming is accurately stated. 97% consensus doesn't make sense scientifically. It makes sense in a political context...maybe..., but definitely not a Scientific context...
Of course, science is not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of working through everything that goes into making a conclusion based on facts. There is a lot that goes into it. Most laymen and politicians, they are not equipped to go through it all, nor would most of them have time or will to do so. But politicians still need to make decisions, based on science they don't understand. So how are they to know what are facts and what are not? Simple, ask what the consensus of scientists is. That's the only way to approach this, they are not scientists, they cannot actually do the science in order to reach a conclusion, they can't even learn properly what scientists have already done, but they still need to know what is the TL;DR and make decisions based on that.
@@j.macjordan9779 there is no dissenting opinion left, because there is nothing left to try and disprove that hasn't been tried already. It's all been done and tried decades ago. You don't see any climate change rebuttals the same way you don't see any heliocentrism rebuttals, it's ancient history. FFS, Joseph Fourier figured greenhouse effect out in 1824, climate change deniers haven't even caught up that far. Actual scientists have better things to do than try and refute basic thermodynamics. The effort is on more accurately quantifying all the variables and on doing more accurate analysis on how much and how fast.
@@aleksandersuur9475 Can you explain to me what thermodynamics has to do do with "Climate Change"? Just because the word has "therm" in it, it has nothing to do with "Global Warming". I'm baffled? Like they say," if you don't know what you're talking about , baffle them with BS".
@@thevoiceofreason2153 I'm sorry for using a term you are not familiar with, but I think that I can indeed easily explain it. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics dealing with transfer of heat, change in temperature and how it relates to energy, work and so on. So if we talk about something cooling or warming, then thermodynamics has everything to do with it, that is the physical basis for the entire change in temperature thingy. You will be learning the basics of it in physics class once you get to about grade 6 or 7 in your school, it might seem a bit complicated at first, but don't worry, it really isn't, everyone else learns it, you will too.
Hell, Americans should live in India for a few years and witness the irregularities in Monsoons that didn't exist a few years ago. The state of Kerala got flooded because it rained too much too quickly. 2 years ago it was dry as a bone. We see these irregularities become more extreme year after year. Idiots will continue to argue even a the brink of extinction.
+82 Pythons India's monsoon season in 2018 is NOTHING close to being below average. Don't talk out of your rear, come live under the many feet of flood that previously dry areas are under before you jump to your cranially deficient conclusions. It is not the fact that climate changes that is the problem. Any average middle-schooler ought to know that climate changes. It is the alarming rate at which it is doing so currently, that is the problem. But let us pretend that climate always changed this quickly before humans. Well, earthquakes always happened, that doesn't mean we should stop research into earthquake resistant buildings and such. If climate change will cause an apocalyptic change in human society, we ought to prevent it, whether or not it is natural. We did not become the dominant species by idly sitting by while the planet exterminated us.
AI XE........despite you going completely off the rails there, I'm gonna ask you this relating to your "apocalyptic change" you mentioned. Can we agree that there once was at least one ice age? If an ice age occurred again, one would call that apocalyptic! So, should we therefore not be warming the planet to prevent this disaster? Can you see how your theory falls completely flat on its face now?
JustUsFlyers Notice that I mentioned that it would be apocalyptic to our society, not to life in general. Life does, as the meme/cliche goes, find a way. Society, however, is a different matter. Do not pretend to understand the causes behind ice ages. The causes of ice ages are not fully understood, and no ice age has ever been affected by a preceding period of warmth. Warmth that, in many cases, far exceeded what humans can comfortably thrive in. The ice ages are complex phenomena that are rather more intricate than thawing a leg of frozen mutton or whatever. As usual, nothing I said falls flat on any part of its metaphorical body.
What are you on about?? I'm assuming extermination only affects society then? HAHA. Christ you're off the chart arent you? Where did I even mention the cause of an ice age lol. I was merely pointing out that if in your world we can prevent the "theory" of the planet warming, then surely we could prevent another ice age should it occur? You say this is possible whether natural or man made. So if a warming planet is occurring, and its completely natural, how do you propose we prevent it warming enough to affect "society"??
“I am so tired of people who cry about climate change and jump on the band wagon of stupidity. If they actually did the research and scanned public & world meteorological sources, facts & conclusions using the real science, then they might have a better understanding of why they should choose Not to become one of millions of frantic, crazed climate change zombies. -Tim Berglund
@@Gambling4Life I will accept things that have reasonable evidence and/or coherent reasoning to support them. A flat earth has neither. Climate change has lots.
Itunu Adebola eh, every rational person watching knew what he meant to say. Watch that come up on fox "news" about how Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson doesn't know anything because he thought Lincoln was president in 1963. Actually, I take that back, people on fox news don't listen to Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson because.... Well, they're on fox news so: pee pee ca ca!!!!
Fox News has the temerity to cite "non-scientists" like Freeman Dyson. Wait... Dyson is a real physicist who has made substantial contributions to our understanding of the world. Tyson on the other hand...
I caught that too. Watch Republicans try to invalidate the entirety of his argument based on a simple honest mistake, while they support a guy who probably doesn't even know what the Academy of Scientists is, let alone the implications of establishing said body!
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.
@jumpingblue1623 Incorrect. Before Galileo, the modern scientific method did not exist. It was the Catholic church that persecuted Galileo and pressured others to agree with the church. Galileo dared to differ with orthodox church doctrine and was punished for it. The church used the Bible to determine what was true concerning the cosmos, Galileo used methods of discovery that conflicted with what was accepted from biblical teachings. Galileo helped to pioneer the modern scientific method but was regarded as a heretic in his day. So you see the consensus Galileo fought was one derived from religious dogma, not scientific research. Because of this stance, he is regarded today as a hero - and rightly so. You have this backwards.
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.
"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.
That is for the progress of science You don't see a car maker try to make a square Tyre just because they think the science is changing. Science doesn't change. Our understanding of it does.
@@shashank.k2509 There's no "understanding of science". Science is not a God that dishes out information to you, science is the flawed process by which flawed people gain flawed information. Science might not change, but its results do. That's why the "settled science" of 500 years ago doesn't pass today.
@@christianponicki9581 my comment is worthless to you.But you're not the only one who's gonna read it. I can get into the specifics of climate change but after spending/wasting a lot of time that I regret to have ever spent trying to educate people like you on different social media platforms I've just about given up.
King Brilliant True, but no one is competing with us about climate change like they were, and that’s making it harder to give an incentive to government to save the planet.
Long before the left ever thought of climate alarmism, the left was shit! The political left was always trying to cheat it's way to power! They have defiled everything they have touched, along the way, INCLUDING science!
I had to listen to it twice to make sure that he really misspoke. LOL Like everyone else he gets excited and makes mistakes as he's on TV. We are smart enough to know what he meant.
I wonder if we could be interviewed or n national television and not make a mistake 🤔 this man is smarter then all of us put together. Talking about cherry picking.
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
Bill Nye does his show at Barney level because he isn't a scientist. He has only a layman's understanding of science, just like me or other people who pay attention but don't work in the field.
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.
How dare you question Tyson! He sir, is a complete genius who gets nothing for promoting a government agenda. And if you talk back I will be forced to call you a hate filled racist.... dont make me go there!
"We should listen to the Consensus" 3 years earlier "Science doesnt work in Consensus" -Neil Degrasse Tyson. I love you Neil but you're starting to turn left HARD!
Oh man FUCK that eternal LEFT-RIGHT BULLSHIT! I am SO fed up with that crap! We're ALL in the same boat, so SIT YOUR ASSES DOWN AND STUDY AT LEAST 5 SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ON THE TOPIC FROM THE DENIERS' SIDE AND THE MAINSTREAM'S SIDE. PEER REVIEWED. But most people quickly are drawn into politizing the issue, arguing back and forth so that little results are made. Humanity. Pathetic, junkie-like behavior while having high tech. Human. Like me and you.
Some good points. Some reflections: 1) We should not be concerned with “settle science” (aka scientific consensus) but rather of truth. Anyone should be free to question anything but humble enough to know the limits of their own expertise. 2) You can’t point to any instance of a weather event (e.g. the hurricane, as was done here) as proof of climate change. The one could be true without the other. 3) What I am most skeptical about personally is not that human’s are contributing to climate change but that the effects of the change constitute a crisis.
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change. Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below: "For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes." Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works." Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
bidmcms3 nah ppl dumb enough to deny climate change ought to be scolded. However, he didn’t even scold, he’s just enthusiastic bout this topic cuz it will have catastrophic consequences
Science is invariably, always wrong. Which is the main point of the scientific method and the falsification principle. If there's any wisdom this debate will reveal to the masses about science is that It's meant to be treated as a system that forever updates itself because it can never be true. To prevent or oppose criticism of any theory is to retard scientific progress that leads to useful outcomes.
How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore buying a home next to the beach ? How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore flying around in private jets ? How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore selling his TV to big oil ? How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gores 20x ave. Carbon footprint?
Him Bike Agreed. And also, how come Tyson doesn't mention all the apocalyptic predictions that Al Gore made that turned out to be completely false! If all beach front property was destined to be under water within a few decades, why would wealthy people invest in it and mortgage companies be stupid enough to be involved in such a risky venture? Maybe Al Gore's prediction of rising ocean levels caused the value of water front property to drop so that he and his friends could buy it up at a lower price. Hmmm. I'm dying for someone to release a documentary called The Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore. Hopefully it comes out within 12 years as that's apparently when the world is going to end according to AOC.
yep. Still wondering why the greedy banks and insurance companies who do NOT like risk continue to give mortgages for homes built along the eastern seaboard. you fools have been duped!!!
@@grobmanm I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. You think telling people that a disaster is about to happen is "alarmist" (which I'm assuming from the context of your comment is supposed to be a bad thing) and then bring polar bears into it. Is the lookout on the Titanic shouting "Iceberg" being alarmist? Is a smoke detector's high pitched squeal, telling you to get out of the house as smoke fills the room, being alarmist? Is someone running down the corridor of a school, shouting about a gunman, being an alarmist? I live in Australia. We've had bush fires (what you might call forest fires) for several weeks now all up the east coast of Australia. Our bush fire season gets longer and longer every year. It's almost overlapping with the California forest fire season now. I hear the word "unprecedented" every time I turn on the TV. Every year the drought gets worse. Farmers are going bankrupt and being driven from the land. Dams that used to be filled are drying up. The 5 hottest years on record have been in the last decade. The Great Barrier Reef is on the endangered list. Hurricanes and cyclones are becoming more frequent and more powerful. But I'm sorry if I'm being an alarmist. Just take the batteries out of the smoke alarm, roll over and go back to sleep. Ignore all the smoke that's filling the room. Nothing bad could really happen, could it?
remember when these same scientists said that our polar icecaps were supposed to be completely gone by now??? back then it was global warming. now I have lost all respect for Neil for using the weather from last year to prove that climate change is real.
wouls you rather our polar ice caps be gone before any meaningful change/policy is enacted to protect coastal areas from rising sea levels? if we waited till all ice caps were melted and gone, the majority of Florida would've been underwater by now and with it, millions of lives lost. and that's just in one state in one country on our planet. imagine the death and destruction on a worldwide scale. we all know that rising sea levels happen globally--unlike you who seems hell-bent on picking and choosing, sea level rise doesn't do that.
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?
louiethexiii1 indeed he did say in 1963....something I wonder if people even know the words that are coming out of their mouth...Bill Nye is not a scientist...Let stop making the climate change a political issue. Everyone should their part, how many of you take the public transportation or ride a bike to work?
Yes, he misspoke. Even intelligent people can sometimes misspeak, and if they are constantly being interviewed and saying things in public it becomes more and more probable they will say something incorrectly. Candidate Barack Obama said "57 states" by accident. He taught Constitutional law, everyone knows that he knows there are 50 states in the union. President W Bush said "we will not have an all volunteer army" (the audience corrected him and he corrected himself). Bush knows that we have and will continue to have a volunteer army. And finally, NGT talks about Lincoln, references the Civil war, and knows that didn't happen while he was alive.
While I detest this guy's "nothing made everything" pseudoscience, his date was a Freudian Slip. The other one is his "tax climate change" mantra that he's been paid to support. Science is the practice of finding facts and absolutes through hypothesis and results of those tests. Niel degrasse Tyson has tested the science of his wallet. No more. No less. For THAT I'm disgusted that he calls himself a "scientist" because of a few pieces of paper...the one on his office wall & the few bits in his wallet. Atleast he's not "Shill Lie The Propaganda Guy".
@Aaron Payne. Niel Degras Tyson was correct that Lincoln founded the National Academy of Science though he incorrectly said 1963 instead of 1863!!! Now let's look at the numerous times that YOU made inaccurate statements!!!
@@nicknametoolong Oh sure, Democrats love science......until it comes to the PROVEN science that says that there are TWO genders (2), and the science of the XY sex-determination system and how gender is determined. Then suddenly, I don't hear the patronizing, condescending arrogance from Democrats anymore. Democrats cherry pick more "facts" than the number of emails deleted by Hillary Clinton.
Both leftist and rightists don't listen to scientist, only the belowists do! The reptile people will conquer us with our science LOL! (I don't believe in reptile people, if somehow there is any doubt about that. This is supposed to be a joke)
@@Nor1MAL I've been told by my contacts in the underground that the reptile people were going to make you royalty when they take over the surface, but then they read the rest of your comment and instead they're coming for you first! They may be cold-blooded, but they still have hearts man....
The big Banks are behind everything ! Jobs must be created and things must be manufactured, people must be in debt...... otherwise taxes aren't collected and the whole fiat currency ' scam' ceases to function for the banks benefit. If the world is in debt for solar panels and electric cars etc, the banks make profit. The next big money scam is going to mars !
@@jimthechip That's not right. A bunch of people 'walked away from' mortgages on houses that plummeted in value after the housing market collapsed. We TAXPAYERS were forced by the government to BAIL OUT THE BANKS!
@@aarongreen9080 On the contrary, climate change is being pegged as the highest risk category by insurers now, who are already adjusting premiums on waterfront properties. Google insurance companies and sea level rise and see what a hot topic it is.
i would have to defend David I think he means Banks lending out money 40 year mortgages for houses that won't be there in 10 years they(banks) don't believe either ... Greta what's her name is finally right about something . nobody is doing anything (except tax to make jobs) they dont #!#!#!# believe!
@@forbaldo1 The banks aren't on the hook for flooding damage. The insurance companies are. And the insurance companies cover themselves by raising rates. You're clearly uninformed about what a hot topic climate change and flooding is in property investment circles. They very much believe the scientists. It's the uninformed who don't and who will be hurt.
Damn I was just pointing out how people are spamming comments like “I think you mean 1863” when he was talking about Lincoln. Don’t know why everyone’s so pissed
I was interested until he started talking about 50 inches of rain in houston, i.e. the weather. There is no upward tendency in numbers of or strengths of hurricanes. Apples and oranges, and as a scientist I know he knew better..
In Australia...no correlation between rainfall patterns and climate change (?) FACT.......... Another fact, cherry picking of rainfall data from the last 20 years (doom) BUT data taken over the last 100 yrs including the above (all ok)... hmmm agendas?
Why doesn't he convince us that mankind is causing the climate change? Him stating that there is unprecidented rainfall and hurricanes is NOT proof that humans are CAUSING these changes. Come on Dr. Tyson, you are an incredibly talented teacher - teach us!!!!
Because information is power. The science on whether human-induced climate change is occurring is settled, but something as dire as this needs specific information. How fast is climate change accelerating? Are our efforts truly making a difference already? Which regions will be impacted the most? Think of it this way- in the 1980's researched were able to confirm the existence of HIV. But what if they just stopped there? What if they did not investigate how it affects the human body, and what medicine can do about it? Same with climate change, we need a whole lot more information than "yup, it exists".
Regardless if you think that climate change is a matter of belief, rather than scientific fact. The worst thing that can happen if we "pretend" climate change is real is we innovate and reduce pollution. Sounds like a debate not worth having. A nonissue if you will.
I can think of MUCH worse things that can, and currently ARE happening. International sanctions and bans on construction of coal power plants in Africa has forced many areas to remain relatively unindustrialized. Lack of power means poverty, crime, disease, greater strain on endangered species, and starvation.
I am guessing that you are not aware of some scientists who argue that the industrial revolution was great as co2 levels were in danger of being too low to support plant life,,,or that wind power kills millions of birds and caused an Australian city to become a ghost town as a low frequency the turbines messed with their health and also caused chickens to lay yokeless eggs,,we now cant get raw milk in the store ,,even though its been proven that it's way more healthy than the pasteurized and homogenized milk ,,just know when an agenda is pushed and the other side is considered crazy that means it's being forcefed,,,if they want to ban cars they will just shine a spotlight on how many car accidents we have they won't mention how many lives are saved or enriched by it,,that's exactly what they are doing with guns and climate change,,,,,no one ever argued that climate change is not real,,it's the co2 connection that is forced down your throat and you keep wolfing it down like a bear in the fall
TheLast Dragon: First, CO2 is not "pollution". Second: Pretending it is real will have unintended consequences. So it *is* a debate worth having so we know what we are, or are not, dealing with.
Asuming cliamte change is not real and we decide to cut carbon emmisions it means halfs of the devoloping world will be in energy crysis. No medice clean water Massive migration crisis that current crisis will look like highschool exchange student program. Lot of people will die. THIS IS FUCKING ARGUMENT WE MUST HAVE. IF WE WANT TO MAKE BILION OF PEOPLE DIE LETS AMKE FUCKING SURE IT IS FUCKING NESSESARY. People like you gives em nerve.
So how does he respond to Profs. Lindzen (MIT), Happer (Princeton), Christie (Huntsville) and others who go, (a) the satellite data says the temp hasn't gone up as much as you're saying. Have you checked your thermometers aren't being affected by urban sprawl? (b) our plants are LOVING it because they evolved to eat much higher levels of CO2 than we have now (we pump it in at 1000 ppm to greenhouses because that's what they like). (c) CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past (2,000 ppm when brachiosaurus was stomping about) and the world survived. It was at 7,000 ppm when our fossil fuels were laid down. How about the NOAA's own ice core samples that show we go through periods of warming and cooling, and peak warming every 100,000 years or so (we're just over 100,000 years since the last one)? How does he justify plunging the west, responsible for less than 50% of CO2 emissions (which are greening the planet. China and Asia, plus developing countries being helped by China, account for over 50%) into economic disaster, with its associated starvation, suicides, riots and revolutions over something that happens regularly, and that we cannot stop even if it WAS our fault because the biggest 'polluters' won't play ball (India calls it eco-colonialism. Frankly, I'm with them). Is the temp rising? Yes. It does that. Every 100,000 years or so, it goes very high. Then it drops down to around -3 to -4. The last one (just over 100,000 years ago) was the Eemian. 100,000 years before that we had La Bouchet, 100,000 before that Purfleet, and 100,000 before that the Hoxnian. It happens, it's predictable. We need to focus not on stopping it, but on steeling ourselves to deal with it because even if we stopped (everyone, including China, Asia, etc) producing CO2 tomorrow, the temp with STILL go up. We also need to find a reliable power source that can work in subzero temps, because that's what comes next. Wind and solar will not cut it. CO2 is 0.04% of the 1% of GHGs. Of that over 96% is entirely natural (plants and animals breathing, evaporation from the oceans, volcanic activity, etc). Man is responsible for less than 4% of 0.04% of 1%. If the Earth were SO sensitive that it would burn up if we carry on, it would have burned to a crisp when Krakatoa went boom in 1882. It didn't. The Earth can cope. It IS coping by growing more plants (which are feeding the people, so win-win). Bottom line. The threats to the farmers (Eire told they must slaughter 200,000 cattle, farmers across Europe told they must stop growing food, stop using fertilizers and generally stop running efficient farms) has led to outcry because we all know that if they stop, we starve. They're telling us to get rid of our cars and shift to electric, but the grid couldn't cope if we COULD do that, and most of us are too broke thanks to the cost of heating and fuel right now. We're poor and we're starting to get very, VERY angry. Most of the alarmist stuff is coming from one model, RCP 8.5. They put figures we know from 50 years ago into RCP 8.5 and asked it to tell us the weather today. We're all, apparently, dead. Of all the models, RCP 2.4 (I think) is the lowest and most accurately aligns with reality, but it's not scary, so they don't use it for the press briefings. There's only so long you can keep crying wolf. Stop funding this idiocy and you'd be amazed how fast the fearmongering goes down. I've seen papers on how diabetes is responsible for the obesity epidemic (as opposed to stupid amounts of cheap sugar in the food and sedentary lifestyles) and diabetes. Say ANYTHING is caused by climate change, and you'll get published, even if it's utter rubbish. This has got to stop. Use the trillions being pushed into this into defences against rising sea levels, research into genuine alternatives to fossil fuels (which WILL run out one day, and we need something we can turn on and off to accommodate peaks in demands. You can't do that with a nuclear power station!), and ways to keep people cool because we're going to need it, but stop saying we're going to turn into Venus. We simply won't. We're not close enough to the sun, we have MUCH more water than that planet ever had, and Earth has been through this MANY times before.
"This is a knowwwnnnnnn correspondence." - Tyson almost gave himself away, but he caught himself before saying "This is an known CORRELATION." - And, of course, correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Also, to excoriate his opponents for cherry picking data when that's exactly what Michael Mann and others of his ilk do, is incredible hubris. Tyson is not a scientist. Like Bill Nye, he's science-ISH.
He is right except that the cherry picking is almost entirely being done on his side of the argument! Using hurricanes to validate his argument actually invalidates it - there is no discernible change in frequency or strength in the last 100 years, the opposite if anything.
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.
Those plants and animals also had a HIGHER RESISTANCE TO WETBULB TEMPERATURES. Human body core temperature is 36 degree Celsius. You see the implication?
Temperatures and the climate in general where different in a lot if time periods, the problem is just the acceleration that we experience, which will lead to more natural disasters and we won’t be able to adapt that well
@@sheevpalpatine2418 It is like in a SAW movie: We know, we get cooked alive if we don't make it out in time. The only way to do so is to sacrifice some of our stuff: Economic growth.
He says we need to use the last few decades of knowledge to base our theories on then uses the latest great natural disaster as an example of a warning. Selective memory or just playing off people's emotions?
He just says things are known because of "research and science" ....but he never says anything scientific....how do you know? Show us something real, something observable, and undeniable...if it cant be proven and repeated, then its not science.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south is up 400% since the year 2000. It's up 1100% along the Gulf Coast. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. New York already has a $10 billion-dollar flood mitigation project in the works. Houston has a $20 billion-dollar project. Miami Beach has already spent $500 million on sea pumps alone. None of these are for shits and giggles.
The scientific papers that support "climate change" have been cherry picked. The majority of scientists remain skeptical on the issue. The rate at which man effects climate change is not a consensus.
@@johnperic6860 Urr . Second line of his comment . " The majority of scientists remain sceptical on the issue ". As I said, a "fact " pulled out of his ar**e .
@@johnperic6860 "Anyways, consensus literally means nothing." There is a consensus that smoking causes cancer, and other related diseases. I'd say that that means something. Consensus comes after scientific evidence has been peer-reviewed and tested and enough similar conclusions are drawn from it by other scientists. It's not something that is voted on. Authors of seven climate consensus studies - including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook - co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
@@johnperic6860 Well, no it doesn't. Remember the consensus on cancer and smoking? And then there is this: opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
When has the earth ever had an extinction during a warming period? seems to me that warm periods were great for building pyramids and the roman empire. Dark ages did not like the cold so much.
"What's happening here, is there are people who have cultural, political, religious, economic philosophies, that they then invoke, when they want to cherry pick one scientific result or another." I applaud this point, but then he goes on to neglect his own cultural philosophy and political affiliation with 'western science' which can form consensus through inherent bias. He then treats 'science' as an entity whose integrity through consensus is not to be challenged... not sure about that. Race science was consensus a few decades ago, and it's effects still linger. Just as an example.
@IamtheFleecer Yea, I am familiar with eugenics, what I am not familiar with is an absolute way to look at its implementation and effects in the world.. Race is just one glaring example of the matrix-like quality of this world, and there are many others, which any sane person should eventually notice and question..
Actually it might. Take the neolithic revolution; a primitive technology (the development of agriculture) allowed our current society to be formed over time. Now consider what relatively primitive advancement we must make to propel ourselves towards that Star Trek way of life; wind energy for one, and our current renewable energy takes us in the right direction. So a Star Trek future can be approached via wind energy. It’s just a catalyst for our societal advancement.
@@willemschreiber1877 But these people don't want a Star Trek future. They want a midieval past, where the peasants tend to their organic gardens while serving their elite overlords. They hate technology, unless they are the ones who get to own and exploit it while everyone else just gets back to work in the fields.
@FAT cat define scientist. 'A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world.' Mark Twain fits this description
Look at the bright side -- if all the ice melts, we will actually GAIN some land. That's right. Antarctica is about the size of the United States and Mexico COMBINED. That's an awful lot of newly inhabitable land for those displaced (on the coastal areas).
@Jawahar Narayanan It's true. All the scary media stuff shows the coastal areas disappearing. Looks bleak right? They fail to mention the South Pole losing its ice and the actual land becoming available. ;)
The term " the science is settled" should make any science minded individual cringe. "When you find yourself on the side of the majority its time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
Sam Romano. It's not the most watertight aphorism, and I doubt Twain was referring to scientists when he said it. Besides which, the scientific consensus on climate change has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
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 .
People will cherry pick anything to suit their selfish beliefs.
They cherry pick the bible
They cherry pick science
They cherry pick morality
instantsurgery they cherry pick my dick
Hey atheists, what was the mechanism that triggered the big bang or big bangs???
We don't know... yet. We don't fear not knowing. We don't need to fill all these unanswered questions with comfort blanket called god
So you don't know what caused the universe or universes.... But it wasn't a creator, right?
As instantsurgery said, we don’t know what ignited the big bang (universe). And this isn’t a bad thing. It shows humility and honesty and creates the driving force for scientific discovery. But yes, because we don’t know we can not 100% rule out god as a possibility. However There is no evidence for god, thus no reason to believe is was a god and would be scientifically dishonest to say it was god because there is no evidence. If you still wish to believe it was a god, you may, but please realize that that requires faith. And all the modern conveniences that most of society enjoys were not created by faith. I’m not against religion/faith necessarily, just when it steps outside its realm and interjects itself into science.
My favorite rule of thumb: if something is complicated and big money is involved, then you can expect fraud and corruption.
Stanley Goddard my parents were two pack a day smokers. My mother could actually circular breath her cigarettes smoke. It left her mouth, flowed up her upper lip and back in her nose.
I’m not a smoker. There may be no links because the scientists where latterly silenced. I’m not going to research it any further. My parents told me smoking was not good for me, even though they were addicted.
ua-cam.com/video/ipVxxxqwBQw/v-deo.html
i think big money is the motivator. simple or complicated. simple just takes more of a smoke screen.
Mine is: if the government is forcing a truth down your throat we can almost always conclude that it is in fact a LIE.
That’s a complicated ‘rule of thumb’ 🤨
The issue of climate change was doomed as soon as it became a political issue, because in that moment, there was always going to be a group of people who chose to believe it or not believe it in order to stay in their political "lane". It seems like we're slowly getting past this but still a ways off.
Climate change is a hoax because I saw a UA-cam videos about it. Take that science
@@aliasbam2750 😃😃🤔🙁🙁🙁
There certainly is climate change ..I can walk out my door on a 93 degrees day and know that!
@Boony Tooty Search Up the Grand Solar Minimum
@Boony Tooty Except they didn't change their mind. Just because you read some article in the newspaper, doesn't mean shit. Science has never predicted another Ice Age any time soon. The global warming was the mainstream science since 60ties.
On the matter of scientific consencus: In a formal reaction to the book ‘Hundred authors against Einstein (1931)’, Einstein responded: “Why hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.
That's bullshit. Einstein just repeated what OTHER scientists were already saying; and then in 1950 the propaganda-press gave him credit for it so that Russians couldn't claim they did it.
@@iandezur4043 so what, the guys was a super genius
Best comment ever...!
@@michaelbartnicki9464 "so what", said you. Translation: Truth doesn't matter. I've been shocked, shocked I tell you, that it took me over 50 years in life to realize there are people who don't care what's true or not true. Anyway, have a nice day. :) Disclaimer: It was a figurative shock.
Gary Hawkins Firstly, you’re playing the “gotcha” game. Shame. Second, how does discrediting Einstein and blaming Russia make your argument any more relevant? I’d like to see where you got the info on that.
At the beginning of every disaster-movie there's a scientist being ignored.
WaffyNimb that is Hollyweird pushing GLOBULL WARMING. You are so gullible that you think Hollyweird movies are reality.
WafflyNimb Yeah usually the "lone nut job" scientist who goes against the government consensus panel of expert's. Who are actively hiding their blunder that is causing whatever crisis is now arising as a result. Lol.
WafflyNimb The operative word here being "movie".
Yeah, and movies aren't real, dumbass!
We're not in a movie.
No matter your position on the climate, please limit what you throw out as in plastics & chemicals :D
The problems of pollution and waste need to be given way more attention than they are now.
Nah
@@lmao-mx5dj if you would have to be chocked under the waste you produce you'd think otherwise.
@@samovarmaker9673 k
Sticks and Stones with Mike. There's no "position". Climate change is an objective truth.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclaire.
alblanzjr , exactly. Which is why all these scientists are getting rich writing books and making appearances regarding a theory that they don’t truly believe.
@@joewright9879 So those fires burning in the Arctic are theoretical?
The warming alarmists have been very guilty of cherry picking their dates and papers. Just look at all of the failed predictions.
and even harder when it's a [ career ] woman
@@liner011f7 Examples?
Did anyone else catch the part where Neil deGrasse Tyson is claiming that Abraham Lincoln was passing laws in 1963 clearly he meant 1863 it's just funny when someone's trying to get their point across in their speech and they have a slight error of a hundred years I love you Neal it's okay it just shows you're human
xxo
I caught that.
Have you ever tried cherry picking? It's hard. The birds eat the good ones a day before youd pick it.
fishyc150 - I have. The best ones are at the top.
I would always try to pick the 2 or 3 cherries out of canned fruit cocktails before my mom could split it between me and my brother.
@Gary McMichael lol lol lol lol.
I have a cherry tree. This is true. We need a net over em. sucks ass.
They must taste good straight off the vine
"When two politicians argue over whether or not science is true, it's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." -here we are.
There can be valid and properly executed science, but no science is true. In science, there is no assertion which could be true or false, the assertion or theory comes later. This is the position that no scientific statements are true, it is called scientific nihilism.
@@EclipsedEmpires The moon has a huge blue glow at the moment.... plasma ?
Your an idiot. There is no actual hard evidence humans are the cause. None. Neil is basically saying well these 100 say this and these 11 say this so we go with the 100.
@@justinaime7301 Isn't that quibbling? At least a little bit?
@@smithnwesson990 Congratulations, you just simplified scientific consensus that has existed for thousands of years. Bravo, I guess.
as an witch doctor I'm offended and outraged
Tyson may be a smooth talker and can spin a good story about how CO2 will be the death of all of humanity and most animal species, but if you fact check just a little about his fraudulent parroting of the easily refuted claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that human consumption of fossil fuels is the major cause of "Climate Change", then you can see why his ilk is deathly afraid of debating the top critics of their Climate Armageddon fairytale. I'd much rather put my trust in a dark asian witch doctor because their "hotness" is real! ;)
@@channelwarhorse3367I'll have what you are smoking. On second thought your mind is much too burned up to function in society.
Sometime, look at how the so-called consensus was measured. Send out a survey then hand pick which responses to count. Statistically invalid.
@@channelwarhorse3367I'm manufacturing solutions in your addled brain.
@@channelwarhorse3367a water powered engine or home? You are so far from reality.
"You can find a scientific papr that says practically anything."
Nuff said.
But we don't make important decisions or come to conclusions with just one scientific paper. Michael Manns hockey stick data was corroborated by over two dozen follow-up studies and then affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, for example. We should never trust one study, no matter the subject.
Right, it was proven that Exxon was funding anti man made climate science studies after realizing the disastrous effects of fossil fuels several decades ago.
@@ericmanget4280Fossil fuels. Do you think dinosaurs leaked all that oil out? Do you think man can change the climate of the entire planet when it is mostly water?
@@karlklein2966 This is the most idiotic reasoning I've read yet.... Anthropogenic climate change on the scale we're doing is absolutely capable of changing the planet. The main contributors are fossil fuels emissions, cattle rearing due to the methane, deforestation releasing thousands of years of stored carbon from old growth forests, and feedback loops such as the majority of the arctic ice melting which would otherwise naturally reflect the sun's light/heat. Go look up what's happening to Venice, it's literally underwater right now: ua-cam.com/video/QhaSeJu_mVs/v-deo.html&ab_channel=FRANCE24English. Were you asleep all of 2020? There were raging wildfires that turned the fucking air sepia toned across North America and Australia: ua-cam.com/video/ccpg_1kilIA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake%3ANow. The arctic is shrinking at a rate that it'll be gone in a few decades. The coral reefs across the world are all being killed due to the ocean's rising PH level from climate change. You think this is all just a coincidence that it's all happening within a ~century of the industrial revolution?
You get crazy people in every profession. Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't suffer from mental health or be influenced by greed. You're obviously going to get the odd scientist whose papers are not accurate, but as Tyson said, you take things seriously when a large number of scientists are in agreement.
"When science doesn't fit someone's world view, they deny it." - Bill Nye
Like transgenders
Oh the irony...
Like the weird gender stuff Bill had on his show.
Macario Patrick "The Vagina is a Penis" - Bill Nye
Macario Patrick Says the non-scientist. Would you get advice about plumbing in your home from an electrician?
It's really tough to separate science and politics in today's world. I do know this....when there is enough money involved, people will try to convince you of anything
Which is exactly what he's become.
A talking head for the left. 🤷🏻♂️
Amen. So critical thinkers look at the evidence and make a decision based on reality.
It would cost fossil chemical companies trillions to switch to green tech, why would they do that?
While global warming is real what he's saying I think is we need open debates on all sides to figure out how much of climate change is being done by humans vs natural progression.
@@kairon156 why can't you do your own research, why does it have to be entertaining?
97% of Pompeii residents believed they angered the gods.
No doubt you have the data to justify that statement.
Proves belief is irrelevant.
David Foster not when they weren’t educated on the idea of Gods. Unlike climate scientists they were clueless. If a 97% majority believe that’s the way an evidence is pointing it suggests 3% do not have the prowess to back up the claim. Simple.
@@freescratch645 FINE, except that over 50% of Americans still believe in God (Plural, if you count Jesus).
David Foster again not a valid claim, religion is a faith based claim, whereas climate change is done totally off data and evidence. It’s a silly comparison
"It's irresponsible to create public policy while ignoring the scientific community's consensus."
Well, this aged like fine wine. I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson could have predicted our response to Covid based on our response to climate change.
All the terrifying covid models were wrong.
And then some…
The response to Covid was gross overkill. Any reasonable post pandemic analysis concludes the unintended consequences far exceed any positives.
The unintended consequences of course were obvious and suspiciously censored.
@@tindog999 stf* flat earth 🗑️
@@stx7389 you stf socialist moron
You can't cherry pick science unless you believe the smartphone you are watching UA-cam videos on is powered by magic and not decades of rigorous scientific innovation.
this is a good example of a Man that shows evidence to support his claims.
...and a Man that has vague claims to support his lack of evidence.
I find your comment offensive. Do you know how many millions of man hours of prayer it took for Jesus to miracle iPhones into existence?!
;)
The entire scientific compendium is based on magic occult practices. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton without the Corpus Hermetica...there would have been no scientific revolution.
You are cherry picking right now. Your smartphone may be an example of a scientific technical achievement that you appreciate, but what about all of the things created by science you do not appreciate. Global warming itself has been caused by science.
Global warming is caused by the Sun, Jupiter, Earth's magnetic field, the dust cloud the Sun has been moving through that we are beginning to exit, and cosmic rays. Not burning gas and farting.
"The day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done. It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
Perfect.
Now, 4 years after your comment, there’s politicians who don’t know what a woman is… we no longer have an informed democracy
500 climate scientists sent a letter to the UN telling them that man-made global warming does not have a consensus.
@@Islamisthecultofsin 5 million people believe we dont need Oxygen to survive
its a good thing thats only 0.71% of the population... and possibly a convenience there all dead.
500 in relation to what? and even so the particulars matter "global warming does not have a consensus" of what?
@@jasonu3741 They claim that there is a consensus that all climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing man-made global Warming. It doesn't exist.
Well well said... Amen
Anyone denying science is also denying progress.
Yet they still use their computer , heh ?
"Denying science" is not a thing, people don't even know what science IS, America is so dumb, but arrogant because it gets idiots and perverts famous on TV. Meanwhile in the history books, it went against climate change, and is the reason people will have to thank the EARTH as a whole is fucking hellish to inhabit in xx years b/c half a moronic country voted a reality star in b/c they thought he was "tough" and "cool". idiots!
Gissel1989 tell me what progress you are talking about and which science are you referring to
Its the artists, architects, engineers, mathematicians, inventors, etc.. who brought us into the modern age not scientists.
Cody131Coops I hope you understand how stupid that statement is.
Nope. Truth is not built by consensus.
Lincoln lived a lot longer than I realized.
yeah, i picked up on that too
ZenFox : yeah, I noticed that too.
No, it's just a slip of tongue.he died in 1865.
ZenFox. It's called a slip of the tongue. How come you don't know that?
@@danzel1157 Zenfox was just making a funny comment because of the slip of the tongue ! how come you don't know that ?
i can't believe this is still a debate, i mean am i the only one exhausted by this still being a discussion?
It really isn't a debate much outside of the US.
well, it should be, we should question everything the government says, everything.
BzTruetalk yeah not very much free speech up here in Canada, or Europe, or Australia, or every single other first world country... Don't be dumb.
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
There is no debate, there is simply idiots who don't understand versus learned adults that comprehend what science justifies
Fareed Zakaria looks like the Indian version of Willem Dafoe
In 2019 when Al Gore's catastrophic global warming prediction has been proved to be a lie and NASA had no choice but to release temperature data showing that the earth has been under global cooling since Feb 2016, both Al Gore and Neil deGrasse Tyson sound like driveling fools to be so certain about global warming. There is no consensus among scientists regarding global warming. There is only consensus of among scientists sold out to the global warming scammers.
VIDEO: The truth about global warming
VIDEO: 25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists
VIDEO: 30,000 Scientists 9000 Phd's - Sue Al Gore Over Global Warming FRAUD.
@@simon6071
The Earth has not been cooling. The trend is a warming one. Where do you get your information? Because it's flawed. If you can provide evidence from a scientific source I would be more than surprised.
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
As for the 30,000 scientist petition;
It is misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science.
If there is sanity in question here it has to be that of those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus. The science on climate change is solid. The counter claims are shoddy, and easily debunked. Which is why so many personal attacks are made on scientists, along with those who support them.
@@danzel1157
VIDEO: 8 Climate Change Predictions PROVEN 100% False
VIDEO: Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction.
A British high court ruled there were nine significant factual errors in Al Gore's "inconvenient truth". The court cannot lie about Al Gores predictions being correct when they failed to come true. However, his film is still allowed to be shown in schools because the globalists want Al Gore's fear mongering to continue. In the USA, the fear mongering is continued by AOC who claims the world will end in 12 years due to global warming if the USA does not stop using fossil fuel.
@@danzel1157
When scientists see solid evidence of NASA ans NOAA tempering with temperature data as showing in the video "Corruption Of The US Temperature Record" and "Arctic Sea Ice Nonsense - The Media, NASA and NOAA Blatantly Lie To The Public", they don't need to be climatologists to tell people about it . When Al Gores prediction of catastrophic global warming failed to come true, we don't even need to be scientists to point out Al Gore's fear mongering BS.
@@danzel1157
Google: HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
"When Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired."
Don't you realize how self-contradictory and biased you are?
AL Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. He is just a con politician who made a bunch of fear mongering predictions of catastrophic global warming to get rich through carbon tax while pretending to be an environmentalist and the global warming sheeple like you would idolize him as if he were the the top authority in climatology even when his predictions failed to come true and even though he is a hypocrite who uses twenty times more electricity than ordinary American families.
VIDEO: Al Gore's Inconvenient Hypocrisy
3:53 epic rhyme
There's a hurricane there, i don't know
Should I stay, should I go
And then you stay and you die
Bill Nye the Science Guy
"People say, 'Look. There are still questions.'"
There are still questions about _gravity._ It's _existence_ is not _among_ them.
lazyperfectionist1 nooo one is denying climate change idiot.
But notice how what idiots like Neil never call it by its real name.. "ANTHROPOGENIC climate change"/MAN MADE climate change.
Real easy to paint your opponent as a kook when you're being twisting definitions.
That's like someone arguing gravity isn't due to the fabric of space time but is instead due to XYZ law. Real easy to label him a "gravity denier" when he is no such thing. He is not denying gravity, he is denying your hypothesis of what causes it.
lazyperfectionist1 sure but then if you are a Flatearther.... lol
dab0331 ,,,you ought to take a squiz at the current views of ozzy political leaders. I don't agree with their bs, but they are rather efficient at quashing the effectiveness of those who try speaking against them. Gotta respect insurance choices apparently. aiw,,p.
lazyperfectionist1 gravity doesn't exist
Flat earth of round earth, nobody can explain that!
Rides go in tides go out, you can't explain that- Bill O'Reilly
Neil deGrasse Tyson: *chuckle* Actually we can.
How does taxing American citizens a billion dollars fix this?
Nunya Bizness this shit just came into my recommended too
Are you denying the climate science or accepting the science as true and struggling with the best ecoomic approach to address the warnings and obvious devastation?
Jrouche the science is not settled, it’s a theory, and a bad one... water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than co2. And even if it were a settled theory, the US is not the largest polluter in the world. Even worse still...the largest polluter here in the US is the federal government, and if you think for even a second that they are going cut back...well you’re not very bright. I do agree however that we, normal regular people can do more to prevent pollution but that brings me to my original question...how does taxing US citizens a billion dollars fix this?
Jrouche no one is denying climate change, the climate is always changing. But pretending that the WORLD IS ENDING in 12 or 11 years whatever dumb number it is, is just a lie and fearmongering to just get elected. The same people who want to end climate change are driving their cars everyday, eating beef, not recycling, and they want others to do something about it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
@@bo3inprofilepic292 No one ever claimed the world was ending in 10 or 12 years, your misinterpretation is the lie or misapplied data is what politicians and theocrats use to muddy the waters. If you actually listen to climate scientists and even well informed scientists in other fields such as Neil Degrassee Tyson you wouldn't claim the world is ending in 10-12 years.
This is the best analysis I've ever seen on the unfortunate and dangerous phenomenon of non-scientists inserting themselves into the scientific process. Neil rocks!
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change. Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below: "For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes." Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works." Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
I rest my case.
Tom Right? I love these UA-cam schizophrenics who just use the Internet to further deepen and cultivate their mental issues. Jokes aside. I do Infact think that it's problematic.. It's like a crazy person can find another crazy person and they can all agree with each other. Some weird validation. Anyway done with the rant have a nice day.
Please tell me how keeping science objective and accountable to it's claims is lunacy as your hypothesis states.
Tom You haven't looked very deep into it have you?
We live in a world of extremes. Both sides refuse to admit that they both may be right and wrong. Each side must be 100% right. THAT is the issue.
A fundamental issue like the climate crisis has not only the potential to annihilate us,
it has the potential to serve as rift within societies, split them along political and economic lines and therefore accelerste such societies' slow downfall.....
0:45 Copernicus had a scientific paper that took hundreds of years for a majority of "Scientists" to accept. Science is not conducted by consensus, it requires proof.
It requires "proof" that is falsifiable and a body of work that is actually allowed to be published that attempts to falsify that proof.
The mere fact that you can't publish a work where you outwardly attempt to falsify man-made global warming, is pretty bad and unscientific; HOWEVER, we're beyond that... Not only are you denied your right, your role necessarily as a scientist, to subject a study to falsification, but the mere notion, the intention to do such, results in career suicide....that means, by default, man-made global warming is not science. If it were, there wouldn't be only a "2-3%" of papers with dissenting opinion. Science isn't a goddamn Democracy, and it can't be subjective within a study, but also it can't be subjective in managing the body of allowable studies. 2-3% is a clear indication there is pseudoscience happening. Every single study published has to name it's potential faults, where it could have been improved, and the limitations of the study....in order to yield to falsifiability. 2-3% doesn't cover those weaknesses - 20-30% would still be low.
If it hit a 30% falsification attempts published and they couldn't do it, maybe...maybe I would say man-made global warming is accurately stated. 97% consensus doesn't make sense scientifically. It makes sense in a political context...maybe..., but definitely not a Scientific context...
Of course, science is not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of working through everything that goes into making a conclusion based on facts. There is a lot that goes into it. Most laymen and politicians, they are not equipped to go through it all, nor would most of them have time or will to do so. But politicians still need to make decisions, based on science they don't understand. So how are they to know what are facts and what are not? Simple, ask what the consensus of scientists is. That's the only way to approach this, they are not scientists, they cannot actually do the science in order to reach a conclusion, they can't even learn properly what scientists have already done, but they still need to know what is the TL;DR and make decisions based on that.
@@j.macjordan9779 there is no dissenting opinion left, because there is nothing left to try and disprove that hasn't been tried already. It's all been done and tried decades ago. You don't see any climate change rebuttals the same way you don't see any heliocentrism rebuttals, it's ancient history. FFS, Joseph Fourier figured greenhouse effect out in 1824, climate change deniers haven't even caught up that far. Actual scientists have better things to do than try and refute basic thermodynamics. The effort is on more accurately quantifying all the variables and on doing more accurate analysis on how much and how fast.
@@aleksandersuur9475 Can you explain to me what thermodynamics has to do do with "Climate Change"? Just because the word has "therm" in it, it has nothing to do with "Global Warming". I'm baffled? Like they say," if you don't know what you're talking about , baffle them with BS".
@@thevoiceofreason2153 I'm sorry for using a term you are not familiar with, but I think that I can indeed easily explain it. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics dealing with transfer of heat, change in temperature and how it relates to energy, work and so on. So if we talk about something cooling or warming, then thermodynamics has everything to do with it, that is the physical basis for the entire change in temperature thingy. You will be learning the basics of it in physics class once you get to about grade 6 or 7 in your school, it might seem a bit complicated at first, but don't worry, it really isn't, everyone else learns it, you will too.
Hell, Americans should live in India for a few years and witness the irregularities in Monsoons that didn't exist a few years ago. The state of Kerala got flooded because it rained too much too quickly. 2 years ago it was dry as a bone. We see these irregularities become more extreme year after year.
Idiots will continue to argue even a the brink of extinction.
+82 Pythons
India's monsoon season in 2018 is NOTHING close to being below average. Don't talk out of your rear, come live under the many feet of flood that previously dry areas are under before you jump to your cranially deficient conclusions.
It is not the fact that climate changes that is the problem. Any average middle-schooler ought to know that climate changes. It is the alarming rate at which it is doing so currently, that is the problem.
But let us pretend that climate always changed this quickly before humans. Well, earthquakes always happened, that doesn't mean we should stop research into earthquake resistant buildings and such. If climate change will cause an apocalyptic change in human society, we ought to prevent it, whether or not it is natural. We did not become the dominant species by idly sitting by while the planet exterminated us.
I like my toilet.
AI XE........despite you going completely off the rails there, I'm gonna ask you this relating to your "apocalyptic change" you mentioned. Can we agree that there once was at least one ice age? If an ice age occurred again, one would call that apocalyptic! So, should we therefore not be warming the planet to prevent this disaster? Can you see how your theory falls completely flat on its face now?
JustUsFlyers
Notice that I mentioned that it would be apocalyptic to our society, not to life in general. Life does, as the meme/cliche goes, find a way. Society, however, is a different matter.
Do not pretend to understand the causes behind ice ages. The causes of ice ages are not fully understood, and no ice age has ever been affected by a preceding period of warmth. Warmth that, in many cases, far exceeded what humans can comfortably thrive in.
The ice ages are complex phenomena that are rather more intricate than thawing a leg of frozen mutton or whatever.
As usual, nothing I said falls flat on any part of its metaphorical body.
What are you on about?? I'm assuming extermination only affects society then? HAHA.
Christ you're off the chart arent you? Where did I even mention the cause of an ice age lol. I was merely pointing out that if in your world we can prevent the "theory" of the planet warming, then surely we could prevent another ice age should it occur? You say this is possible whether natural or man made. So if a warming planet is occurring, and its completely natural, how do you propose we prevent it warming enough to affect "society"??
I got an ad about thus guy before the video started lol
Same
I didn't. I conquered it.
I didn't.
i got it too, skipped it asap tho
That’s how advertising on UA-cam works
“I am so tired of people who cry about climate change and jump on the band wagon of stupidity. If they actually did the research and scanned public & world meteorological sources, facts & conclusions using the real science, then they might have a better understanding of why they should choose Not to become one of millions of frantic, crazed climate change zombies.
-Tim Berglund
Considering that flat earthers still exist in the 21st century, getting universal acceptance that climate change is real will surely be impossible.
If you truly believe in science then you won't universally accept any idea, as that in itself is anti science and is ultimately dogma.
@@Gambling4Life I will accept things that have reasonable evidence and/or coherent reasoning to support them. A flat earth has neither. Climate change has lots.
1863.. I don’t mean to be that guy but someone had to say it
HaikesXO damnit!!! I wanted to post this
Fareed should have fixed it. He dropped the ball.
Itunu Adebola eh, every rational person watching knew what he meant to say. Watch that come up on fox "news" about how Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson doesn't know anything because he thought Lincoln was president in 1963. Actually, I take that back, people on fox news don't listen to Dr. DeGrasse-Tyson because.... Well, they're on fox news so: pee pee ca ca!!!!
Fox News has the temerity to cite "non-scientists" like Freeman Dyson. Wait... Dyson is a real physicist who has made substantial contributions to our understanding of the world. Tyson on the other hand...
I caught that too. Watch Republicans try to invalidate the entirety of his argument based on a simple honest mistake, while they support a guy who probably doesn't even know what the Academy of Scientists is, let alone the implications of establishing said body!
1:46
Uhhh think you're about a century off Mr Tyson
Denier! :P www.theclimaterecord.com/extinction-rebellion-strikes-out
TheClimateRecord wtf this is about the number he said
Glitchxed Fix wRonG yOu aLt RiGhT nAzI tHe CiViL wAr HaPpEnEd In 1960
Lol I never noticed that
I caught that.
I think that one important thing that Tyson points out in this video is the fact that you can find a scientific paper that says almost anything. Because of this, people can point out any random paper with nothing else to back it up to support their false beliefs. He calls this cherry picking. When creating any kind of opinion or policy, it is important that we always pick out information that is supported by numerous scientists and that is what Tyson calls "settled science". It is important that we all base our opinions on established facts and that politicians do the same with policies.
They did that to Galileo.
The fact is it's a global scam. Need help with the facts?
@jumpingblue1623 Incorrect. Before Galileo, the modern scientific method did not exist. It was the Catholic church that persecuted Galileo and pressured others to agree with the church. Galileo dared to differ with orthodox church doctrine and was punished for it.
The church used the Bible to determine what was true concerning the cosmos, Galileo used methods of discovery that conflicted with what was accepted from biblical teachings. Galileo helped to pioneer the modern scientific method but was regarded as a heretic in his day.
So you see the consensus Galileo fought was one derived from religious dogma, not scientific research. Because of this stance, he is regarded today as a hero - and rightly so.
You have this backwards.
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 is the type of person that appreciates you for asking a good question.
didnt he say dont question?
As much as I like him, but he's the guy that appreciates you for asking .... anything that gives him an opportunity to talk!
he can't answer good questions. he answers only the questions coming from the ones with the same prejudice as his.
You mean SCRIPTED questions used to promote a global scam.
"Science is never settled........PERIOD" Quantum physics certainly is not.....just one example.
@Carlos Davis That's not a scientific theory.
Except that it is. Are you confusing quantum mechanics with interpretations of quantum mechanics?
"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.
The purpose of science is to constanrly question. "Settled" science is the oposite of that.
That is for the progress of science You don't see a car maker try to make a square Tyre just because they think the science is changing. Science doesn't change. Our understanding of it does.
@@shashank.k2509 There's no "understanding of science". Science is not a God that dishes out information to you, science is the flawed process by which flawed people gain flawed information. Science might not change, but its results do. That's why the "settled science" of 500 years ago doesn't pass today.
@@christianponicki9581 I regret to inform you that most of that is false.
@@shashank.k2509 I regret to inform you that your comment is worthless and clarifies nothing.
@@christianponicki9581 my comment is worthless to you.But you're not the only one who's gonna read it. I can get into the specifics of climate change but after spending/wasting a lot of time that I regret to have ever spent trying to educate people like you on different social media platforms I've just about given up.
Two things come from politics mixing with Science: One bad politics and two worst science
King Brilliant True, but no one is competing with us about climate change like they were, and that’s making it harder to give an incentive to government to save the planet.
Long before the left ever thought of climate alarmism, the left was shit! The political left was always trying to cheat it's way to power! They have defiled everything they have touched, along the way, INCLUDING science!
He said 1963 instead of 1863.
TY, I thought I was the only one who noticed lmao
I noticed too
I had to listen to it twice to make sure that he really misspoke. LOL Like everyone else he gets excited and makes mistakes as he's on TV. We are smart enough to know what he meant.
I wonder if we could be interviewed or n national television and not make a mistake 🤔 this man is smarter then all of us put together. Talking about cherry picking.
Well done Einstein , instead of focusing on point you just picking up stupid things which should not matter in this topic.
arguments from authority and from majority are recognised as cognitive biases which cut no scientific mustard
way to miss the point entirely. Let me guess; you're w Republican.
Same with arguing against them, though.
@@eyesofthecervino3366The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim
Neil's brain must hurt 24/7 with the stupidity of People. Same with bill Nye. They both made shows that break it down Barney style. Yet people still call them fake and wrong. Help us. Lol
I like Bill Nye but he lost credibility for me when he said that there are multiple genders.
Bill Nye is an example of cherry picking climate change. He is a fraud.
OMG this is the realest thing ive read all day.
Mace S They are lying.
Bill Nye does his show at Barney level because he isn't a scientist. He has only a layman's understanding of science, just like me or other people who pay attention but don't work in the field.
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.
Oops! I think he meant 1863 - not 1963!
Hey that was Tyson's most accurate claim. lmao
How dare you question Tyson! He sir, is a complete genius who gets nothing for promoting a government agenda. And if you talk back I will be forced to call you a hate filled racist.... dont make me go there!
@@vf12497439, you should seek counselling.
@@musiclover9361 I dont think that would be a good idea. The bastards would lock me up! 😮
vf12497439 Mental health system needs A LOT of work...
Yeah, with my ex I wondered: Should I stay, should I go. I stayed, I died.
I've seen good men die staying with a bad women.
"We should listen to the Consensus" 3 years earlier "Science doesnt work in Consensus" -Neil Degrasse Tyson. I love you Neil but you're starting to turn left HARD!
Oh man
FUCK that eternal LEFT-RIGHT BULLSHIT!
I am SO fed up with that crap!
We're ALL in the same boat, so
SIT YOUR ASSES DOWN AND STUDY AT LEAST 5 SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ON THE TOPIC FROM THE DENIERS' SIDE AND THE MAINSTREAM'S SIDE.
PEER REVIEWED.
But most people quickly are drawn into politizing the issue, arguing back and forth so that little results are made.
Humanity.
Pathetic, junkie-like behavior while having high tech.
Human. Like me and you.
You don't have to be a "scientist" to use your ability to reason.
Wow, we have a really deep philosophical discussion down here. You guys must be professors or something.
However if you're debating science common reasoning often falls if you don't have any understanding of what you're talking about.
"The day two politicians are arguing whether science is true... It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
Some good points. Some reflections:
1) We should not be concerned with “settle science” (aka scientific consensus) but rather of truth. Anyone should be free to question anything but humble enough to know the limits of their own expertise.
2) You can’t point to any instance of a weather event (e.g. the hurricane, as was done here) as proof of climate change. The one could be true without the other.
3) What I am most skeptical about personally is not that human’s are contributing to climate change but that the effects of the change constitute a crisis.
I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson!!! I'm a centrist!!!
Neil is part of the cult of popular science aka "cargocult science" And that 97% of scientists statement is 100% fabricated, as with this singular example of the hundreds of papers that are misrepresented by the cook et al. 2013 "consensus" on anthrpogenic global climate change. Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below: "For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes." Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works." Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
you mean you're a neo nazi
Toilet paper shortage Your no different from a Neo Nazi!😂😂😂 Fascism is communism!! You hateful and ungrateful person. Your probably a troll.
Fascism is authoritarian capitalism.
Toilet paper shortage Communism is a lie. Your rich parents have made you weak and un-competitive. Get a job, hippie.
Real scientists don’t “scold” anyone. That’s a huge part of the problem with the debate over climate change.
bidmcms3 nah ppl dumb enough to deny climate change ought to be scolded. However, he didn’t even scold, he’s just enthusiastic bout this topic cuz it will have catastrophic consequences
John Peric there is no proof???? Um where are you living
@@hebarahman9082 helping provide proof is a better tactic than just acting outraged that someone would say that.
My behavior does not negate a position I hold.
"Scold" is a word used by CNN social media staff to produce a CLICKBAIT title. It doesn't mean Tyson was out to scold anyone.
“Sometimes... science is wrong”-Mac
It wouldn't be a first time.
Hero Colten
Un 1978 “we only have 12 year”
Everything has the ability to be wrong sometimes!
Science is invariably, always wrong. Which is the main point of the scientific method and the falsification principle. If there's any wisdom this debate will reveal to the masses about science is that It's meant to be treated as a system that forever updates itself because it can never be true. To prevent or oppose criticism of any theory is to retard scientific progress that leads to useful outcomes.
@@smorrie9204 progress is not always a good thing...lol
I didn’t know Abraham Lincoln was signing legislation in 1963 , he’s so smart
😂
How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore buying a home next to the beach ?
How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore flying around in private jets ?
How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gore selling his TV to big oil ?
How come he doesn’t speak out about Al Gores 20x ave. Carbon footprint?
Him Bike Agreed. And also, how come Tyson doesn't mention all the apocalyptic predictions that Al Gore made that turned out to be completely false! If all beach front property was destined to be under water within a few decades, why would wealthy people invest in it and mortgage companies be stupid enough to be involved in such a risky venture? Maybe Al Gore's prediction of rising ocean levels caused the value of water front property to drop so that he and his friends could buy it up at a lower price. Hmmm. I'm dying for someone to release a documentary called The Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore. Hopefully it comes out within 12 years as that's apparently when the world is going to end according to AOC.
yep. Still wondering why the greedy banks and insurance companies who do NOT like risk continue to give mortgages for homes built along the eastern seaboard. you fools have been duped!!!
What the hell does Al Gore have to do with the debate?
It's like do what I say not what I do.
So your only argument against thousands of scientists agreeing on climate change is an American politician being a hypocrite ?
There is a difference between climate science and climate alarmism.
For now..
If the doctor tells you you have cancer and if you don't have chemotherapy you are going to die, is he or she being a health alarmist?
@@vpheonix is it the same doctor that told us that polar bear population is rapidly declining due to global warming ?
@@grobmanm I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. You think telling people that a disaster is about to happen is "alarmist" (which I'm assuming from the context of your comment is supposed to be a bad thing) and then bring polar bears into it. Is the lookout on the Titanic shouting "Iceberg" being alarmist? Is a smoke detector's high pitched squeal, telling you to get out of the house as smoke fills the room, being alarmist? Is someone running down the corridor of a school, shouting about a gunman, being an alarmist?
I live in Australia. We've had bush fires (what you might call forest fires) for several weeks now all up the east coast of Australia. Our bush fire season gets longer and longer every year. It's almost overlapping with the California forest fire season now. I hear the word "unprecedented" every time I turn on the TV. Every year the drought gets worse. Farmers are going bankrupt and being driven from the land. Dams that used to be filled are drying up. The 5 hottest years on record have been in the last decade. The Great Barrier Reef is on the endangered list. Hurricanes and cyclones are becoming more frequent and more powerful.
But I'm sorry if I'm being an alarmist. Just take the batteries out of the smoke alarm, roll over and go back to sleep. Ignore all the smoke that's filling the room. Nothing bad could really happen, could it?
@@vpheonix m.theepochtimes.com/in-letter-to-un-scientists-say-there-is-no-climate-emergency_3093580.html
remember when these same scientists said that our polar icecaps were supposed to be completely gone by now??? back then it was global warming. now I have lost all respect for Neil for using the weather from last year to prove that climate change is real.
wouls you rather our polar ice caps be gone before any meaningful change/policy is enacted to protect coastal areas from rising sea levels? if we waited till all ice caps were melted and gone, the majority of Florida would've been underwater by now and with it, millions of lives lost. and that's just in one state in one country on our planet. imagine the death and destruction on a worldwide scale. we all know that rising sea levels happen globally--unlike you who seems hell-bent on picking and choosing, sea level rise doesn't do that.
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?
Abraham Lincoln signed what in 1963? Clearly this guy doesn't know what he's talking about!
I'm kidding lol I know what he meant, he's brilliant
I thought I must have misheard him but obviously wasn't me
We all make mistakes
louiethexiii1 indeed he did say in 1963....something I wonder if people even know the words that are coming out of their mouth...Bill Nye is not a scientist...Let stop making the climate change a political issue. Everyone should their part, how many of you take the public transportation or ride a bike to work?
Eh whats a 100 years?
Yes, he misspoke. Even intelligent people can sometimes misspeak, and if they are constantly being interviewed and saying things in public it becomes more and more probable they will say something incorrectly. Candidate Barack Obama said "57 states" by accident. He taught Constitutional law, everyone knows that he knows there are 50 states in the union. President W Bush said "we will not have an all volunteer army" (the audience corrected him and he corrected himself). Bush knows that we have and will continue to have a volunteer army. And finally, NGT talks about Lincoln, references the Civil war, and knows that didn't happen while he was alive.
Mt. Tyson thanks for the clarity of your speech. It’s so good to see a mind working!
Wait wait wait. Abraham Lincoln signed something into law almost 100 years after his death. That’s umm well interesting
1863.
While I detest this guy's "nothing made everything" pseudoscience, his date was a Freudian Slip.
The other one is his "tax climate change" mantra that he's been paid to support.
Science is the practice of finding facts and absolutes through hypothesis and results of those tests.
Niel degrasse Tyson has tested the science of his wallet.
No more.
No less.
For THAT I'm disgusted that he calls himself a "scientist" because of a few pieces of paper...the one on his office wall & the few bits in his wallet.
Atleast he's not "Shill Lie The Propaganda Guy".
@@maestroaxeman Sreudian Flip
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ABRAHAM LINCOLN
@Aaron Payne. Niel Degras Tyson was correct that Lincoln founded the National Academy of Science though he incorrectly said 1963 instead of 1863!!! Now let's look at the numerous times that YOU made inaccurate statements!!!
Yes but exactly what Science are you pushing??
So the cherry-picking is only on one side is it?
Yes, republicans hate science and democrats largely listen to scientists.
@@nicknametoolong Oh sure, Democrats love science......until it comes to the PROVEN science that says that there are TWO genders (2), and the science of the XY sex-determination system and how gender is determined. Then suddenly, I don't hear the patronizing, condescending arrogance from Democrats anymore.
Democrats cherry pick more "facts" than the number of emails deleted by Hillary Clinton.
@@Vladpryde theres only 2 genders and climate change is real
@@nicknametoolong no man dems are just as bad lol we are screwed
I just wish people listened to scientists. The day people listen, is the day people will learn.
leftist don't care about science but feelings
@@6958921 and the righties do?
Both leftist and rightists don't listen to scientist, only the belowists do! The reptile people will conquer us with our science LOL!
(I don't believe in reptile people, if somehow there is any doubt about that. This is supposed to be a joke)
@@Nor1MAL I've been told by my contacts in the underground that the reptile people were going to make you royalty when they take over the surface, but then they read the rest of your comment and instead they're coming for you first!
They may be cold-blooded, but they still have hearts man....
Perhaps to HONEST scientists; not these grant seeking whores!
And yet banks still financing 30 year note on beach front property.... Hmmmm
The big Banks are behind everything ! Jobs must be created and things must be manufactured, people must be in debt...... otherwise taxes aren't collected and the whole fiat currency ' scam' ceases to function for the banks benefit. If the world is in debt for solar panels and electric cars etc, the banks make profit. The next big money scam is going to mars !
waynebow 2018 What’s wrong with you? Like not to be rude, but seriously.
Because banks don't give a shit. You get a loan on a property and it goes under water you still pay for that property.
@@jimthechip That's not right. A bunch of people 'walked away from' mortgages on houses that plummeted in value after the housing market collapsed. We TAXPAYERS were forced by the government to BAIL OUT THE BANKS!
@@mikeh7917 Kind of my point, the banks do not care they will always be ok....
The man complains about cherry picking in science, then proceeds to make an argument based on one cherry picked weather event...
I wonder why insurance companies aren’t charging major premiums to rich people who buy property near the ocean ?
They actually are. Do some research.
Maybe because those local insurance companies know global warming is false, and realize their market realizes that too?
@@aarongreen9080 On the contrary, climate change is being pegged as the highest risk category by insurers now, who are already adjusting premiums on waterfront properties. Google insurance companies and sea level rise and see what a hot topic it is.
i would have to defend David I think he means Banks lending out money 40 year mortgages for houses that won't be there in 10 years they(banks) don't believe either
... Greta what's her name is finally right about something . nobody is doing anything (except tax to make jobs) they dont #!#!#!# believe!
@@forbaldo1 The banks aren't on the hook for flooding damage. The insurance companies are. And the insurance companies cover themselves by raising rates.
You're clearly uninformed about what a hot topic climate change and flooding is in property investment circles. They very much believe the scientists. It's the uninformed who don't and who will be hurt.
Y’all: “OMG GUYS DID YOU HEAR HIM SAY 1963 INSTEAD OF 1863”
And I'll bet you've never once had a slip of the tongue in your whole life, right? Give us a break.
so whats brother?..are you that fickle...oh yeah you are...cross back while you can
Cole Betts-Must be Biden's brother. Trump/Pence 2020.
Damn I was just pointing out how people are spamming comments like “I think you mean 1863” when he was talking about Lincoln. Don’t know why everyone’s so pissed
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Especially when you are being watched by LOTS of people.
I was interested until he started talking about 50 inches of rain in
houston, i.e. the weather. There is no upward tendency in numbers of or strengths of hurricanes. Apples and oranges, and as a scientist I know he knew better..
Yes they are www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0673-2
In Australia...no correlation between rainfall patterns and climate change (?)
FACT..........
Another fact, cherry picking of rainfall data from the last 20 years (doom) BUT data taken over the last 100 yrs including the above (all ok)... hmmm agendas?
Why doesn't he convince us that mankind is causing the climate change? Him stating that there is unprecidented rainfall and hurricanes is NOT proof that humans are CAUSING these changes. Come on Dr. Tyson, you are an incredibly talented teacher - teach us!!!!
If the science on climate change is settled,then why are climate researchers always putting their hands out for more research grants off governments?
Because information is power. The science on whether human-induced climate change is occurring is settled, but something as dire as this needs specific information. How fast is climate change accelerating? Are our efforts truly making a difference already? Which regions will be impacted the most? Think of it this way- in the 1980's researched were able to confirm the existence of HIV. But what if they just stopped there? What if they did not investigate how it affects the human body, and what medicine can do about it? Same with climate change, we need a whole lot more information than "yup, it exists".
It’s funny because the only people who say it is still a debate are the people who havent ever studied it
markdelej well that is just absolute bullshit mate
@@mattontherocks partially true. some are doing it just for the money.
@@mattontherocks it really isnt man, go do some research.
Said nobody ever
Regardless if you think that climate change is a matter of belief, rather than scientific fact. The worst thing that can happen if we "pretend" climate change is real is we innovate and reduce pollution. Sounds like a debate not worth having. A nonissue if you will.
I can think of MUCH worse things that can, and currently ARE happening. International sanctions and bans on construction of coal power plants in Africa has forced many areas to remain relatively unindustrialized. Lack of power means poverty, crime, disease, greater strain on endangered species, and starvation.
I am guessing that you are not aware of some scientists who argue that the industrial revolution was great as co2 levels were in danger of being too low to support plant life,,,or that wind power kills millions of birds and caused an Australian city to become a ghost town as a low frequency the turbines messed with their health and also caused chickens to lay yokeless eggs,,we now cant get raw milk in the store ,,even though its been proven that it's way more healthy than the pasteurized and homogenized milk ,,just know when an agenda is pushed and the other side is considered crazy that means it's being forcefed,,,if they want to ban cars they will just shine a spotlight on how many car accidents we have they won't mention how many lives are saved or enriched by it,,that's exactly what they are doing with guns and climate change,,,,,no one ever argued that climate change is not real,,it's the co2 connection that is forced down your throat and you keep wolfing it down like a bear in the fall
TheLast Dragon: First, CO2 is not "pollution". Second: Pretending it is real will have unintended consequences. So it *is* a debate worth having so we know what we are, or are not, dealing with.
Asuming cliamte change is not real and we decide to cut carbon emmisions it means halfs of the devoloping world will be in energy crysis. No medice clean water Massive migration crisis that current crisis will look like highschool exchange student program. Lot of people will die. THIS IS FUCKING ARGUMENT WE MUST HAVE. IF WE WANT TO MAKE BILION OF PEOPLE DIE LETS AMKE FUCKING SURE IT IS FUCKING NESSESARY. People like you gives em nerve.
TheLast Dragon, a modern day Pascal's Wager?
So how does he respond to Profs. Lindzen (MIT), Happer (Princeton), Christie (Huntsville) and others who go, (a) the satellite data says the temp hasn't gone up as much as you're saying. Have you checked your thermometers aren't being affected by urban sprawl? (b) our plants are LOVING it because they evolved to eat much higher levels of CO2 than we have now (we pump it in at 1000 ppm to greenhouses because that's what they like). (c) CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past (2,000 ppm when brachiosaurus was stomping about) and the world survived. It was at 7,000 ppm when our fossil fuels were laid down. How about the NOAA's own ice core samples that show we go through periods of warming and cooling, and peak warming every 100,000 years or so (we're just over 100,000 years since the last one)? How does he justify plunging the west, responsible for less than 50% of CO2 emissions (which are greening the planet. China and Asia, plus developing countries being helped by China, account for over 50%) into economic disaster, with its associated starvation, suicides, riots and revolutions over something that happens regularly, and that we cannot stop even if it WAS our fault because the biggest 'polluters' won't play ball (India calls it eco-colonialism. Frankly, I'm with them).
Is the temp rising? Yes. It does that. Every 100,000 years or so, it goes very high. Then it drops down to around -3 to -4. The last one (just over 100,000 years ago) was the Eemian. 100,000 years before that we had La Bouchet, 100,000 before that Purfleet, and 100,000 before that the Hoxnian. It happens, it's predictable. We need to focus not on stopping it, but on steeling ourselves to deal with it because even if we stopped (everyone, including China, Asia, etc) producing CO2 tomorrow, the temp with STILL go up. We also need to find a reliable power source that can work in subzero temps, because that's what comes next. Wind and solar will not cut it.
CO2 is 0.04% of the 1% of GHGs. Of that over 96% is entirely natural (plants and animals breathing, evaporation from the oceans, volcanic activity, etc). Man is responsible for less than 4% of 0.04% of 1%. If the Earth were SO sensitive that it would burn up if we carry on, it would have burned to a crisp when Krakatoa went boom in 1882. It didn't. The Earth can cope. It IS coping by growing more plants (which are feeding the people, so win-win).
Bottom line. The threats to the farmers (Eire told they must slaughter 200,000 cattle, farmers across Europe told they must stop growing food, stop using fertilizers and generally stop running efficient farms) has led to outcry because we all know that if they stop, we starve. They're telling us to get rid of our cars and shift to electric, but the grid couldn't cope if we COULD do that, and most of us are too broke thanks to the cost of heating and fuel right now. We're poor and we're starting to get very, VERY angry.
Most of the alarmist stuff is coming from one model, RCP 8.5. They put figures we know from 50 years ago into RCP 8.5 and asked it to tell us the weather today. We're all, apparently, dead. Of all the models, RCP 2.4 (I think) is the lowest and most accurately aligns with reality, but it's not scary, so they don't use it for the press briefings. There's only so long you can keep crying wolf. Stop funding this idiocy and you'd be amazed how fast the fearmongering goes down. I've seen papers on how diabetes is responsible for the obesity epidemic (as opposed to stupid amounts of cheap sugar in the food and sedentary lifestyles) and diabetes. Say ANYTHING is caused by climate change, and you'll get published, even if it's utter rubbish. This has got to stop. Use the trillions being pushed into this into defences against rising sea levels, research into genuine alternatives to fossil fuels (which WILL run out one day, and we need something we can turn on and off to accommodate peaks in demands. You can't do that with a nuclear power station!), and ways to keep people cool because we're going to need it, but stop saying we're going to turn into Venus. We simply won't. We're not close enough to the sun, we have MUCH more water than that planet ever had, and Earth has been through this MANY times before.
"This is a knowwwnnnnnn correspondence." - Tyson almost gave himself away, but he caught himself before saying "This is an known CORRELATION." - And, of course, correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Also, to excoriate his opponents for cherry picking data when that's exactly what Michael Mann and others of his ilk do, is incredible hubris. Tyson is not a scientist. Like Bill Nye, he's science-ISH.
whats your degree and field of research?
@@brokenbadge4273 How is that relevant to anything?
Neil deGrasse Tyson explains things so brilliantly yet so simple even a simple person gets it
simple people believe him
@@mattthecat03 nothing he said here was incorrect
@@graybonesau nooe...sorry,but
He wasn't right about anything,lmao
Case closed
@@mattthecat03 how
In fact, you have to be a simple person to understand what he said. Reality is a bit more complicated.
He is right except that the cherry picking is almost entirely being done on his side of the argument! Using hurricanes to validate his argument actually invalidates it - there is no discernible change in frequency or strength in the last 100 years, the opposite if anything.
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.
Those plants and animals also had a HIGHER RESISTANCE TO WETBULB TEMPERATURES.
Human body core temperature is 36 degree Celsius.
You see the implication?
Temperatures and the climate in general where different in a lot if time periods, the problem is just the acceleration that we experience, which will lead to more natural disasters and we won’t be able to adapt that well
@@sheevpalpatine2418 It is like in a SAW movie:
We know, we get cooked alive if we don't make it out in time.
The only way to do so is to sacrifice some of our stuff:
Economic growth.
Cherry picks data to suit his agenda but doesn’t want others to do it?
Right? Points to weather events as evidence of climate change.
Jed elmer. What data in particular?
Jed elmer are you a mongoloid?
Data? Since when do climate alarmists use data?
"Look at how wide the hurricane this year was! It's climate change!" lmaooo
He says we need to use the last few decades of knowledge to base our theories on then uses the latest great natural disaster as an example of a warning. Selective memory or just playing off people's emotions?
He just says things are known because of "research and science" ....but he never says anything scientific....how do you know? Show us something real, something observable, and undeniable...if it cant be proven and repeated, then its not science.
@TheDarkKnight ur right...theres no use to proving a statement true....u need to just believe it blindly without question...thanks batman fan
@TheDarkKnight how about U trust that shit....i want proof.
@@absolute757 if you want proof go to a 12th grade chemistry or bio class
97% of scientists agree with whoever pays for their research
Funding doesn't remotely work that way. Nor does research. You clearly don't work in science.
Perfect example of Psychological Projection... accuse others of that which you yourself are guilty.
Who exactly is accusing others of what they are guilty?
As with all science, climate change effected you whether you believe in it or not
Xhelloxshane X
Unfortunately it will affect all of us - not just the ones who say it won't.
Abe was alive in 1963, pretty amazing.
No, 1863..lol
Kennedy was assassinated in 1863.
He’s worried about the coastal cities. Seriously? I don’t believe he’s being sincere.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south is up 400% since the year 2000. It's up 1100% along the Gulf Coast. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%.
New York already has a $10 billion-dollar flood mitigation project in the works. Houston has a $20 billion-dollar project. Miami Beach has already spent $500 million on sea pumps alone. None of these are for shits and giggles.
Neither do the Obamas since they bought a seafront mansion at Martha's Vineyard.
The scientific papers that support "climate change" have been cherry picked.
The majority of scientists remain skeptical on the issue.
The rate at which man effects climate change is not a consensus.
Where youvget that "fact" the majority of scientists dont accept climate change . Out of your derriere .
Dalton Nelson. Can you prove anything you say?
@@johnperic6860 Urr . Second line of his comment . " The majority of scientists remain sceptical on the issue ". As I said, a "fact " pulled out of his ar**e .
@@johnperic6860
"Anyways, consensus literally means nothing."
There is a consensus that smoking causes cancer, and other related diseases. I'd say that that means something.
Consensus comes after scientific evidence has been peer-reviewed and tested and enough similar conclusions are drawn from it by other scientists. It's not something that is voted on.
Authors of seven climate consensus studies - including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook - co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
@@johnperic6860 Well, no it doesn't. Remember the consensus on cancer and smoking? And then there is this: opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
When has the earth ever had an extinction during a warming period? seems to me that warm periods were great for building pyramids and the roman empire. Dark ages did not like the cold so much.
@@kirisaurora5206 please do tell when a mass extinction was caused by global warming.
Money is the root of all science 'denial'.
"Abraham Lincoln signed into Law in 1963..." I'm sure he made a mistake, anyone catch that?
Only hundreds of times throughout this forum.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I did not see those comments haha
Oh, you actually got it! Smart boy.
"What's happening here, is there are people who have cultural, political, religious, economic philosophies, that they then invoke, when they want to cherry pick one scientific result or another."
I applaud this point, but then he goes on to neglect his own cultural philosophy and political affiliation with 'western science' which can form consensus through inherent bias.
He then treats 'science' as an entity whose integrity through consensus is not to be challenged... not sure about that. Race science was consensus a few decades ago, and it's effects still linger. Just as an example.
You can't classify 'race science' as a type of science since it is considered as a pseudoscience
@@materialdesign9038 I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on the point I've produced.
@IamtheFleecer Yea, I am familiar with eugenics, what I am not familiar with is an absolute way to look at its implementation and effects in the world..
Race is just one glaring example of the matrix-like quality of this world, and there are many others, which any sane person should eventually notice and question..
Star Trek will never happen with wind energy.
True. But solar, no? Can't we propel our space ships with solar energy? There's suns everywhere in the universe, so this will surely work!
@@ClemensKatzer If you don't mind spending centuries getting anywhere, sure.
Actually it might. Take the neolithic revolution; a primitive technology (the development of agriculture) allowed our current society to be formed over time. Now consider what relatively primitive advancement we must make to propel ourselves towards that Star Trek way of life; wind energy for one, and our current renewable energy takes us in the right direction. So a Star Trek future can be approached via wind energy. It’s just a catalyst for our societal advancement.
@@willemschreiber1877 But these people don't want a Star Trek future. They want a midieval past, where the peasants tend to their organic gardens while serving their elite overlords. They hate technology, unless they are the ones who get to own and exploit it while everyone else just gets back to work in the fields.
@@howardsmith9342 Star trek had organic farming. Just saying non polluted food and technology are not mutually exclusive.
Mark Twain once said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" for a reason.
@FAT cat He was a wise man though.
@FAT cat define scientist.
'A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world.' Mark Twain fits this description
Problem is you have one party that will vote against anything even if it’s not in their interest to do so
Look at the bright side -- if all the ice melts, we will actually GAIN some land. That's right. Antarctica is about the size of the United States and Mexico COMBINED. That's an awful lot of newly inhabitable land for those displaced (on the coastal areas).
@Jawahar Narayanan It's true. All the scary media stuff shows the coastal areas disappearing. Looks bleak right? They fail to mention the South Pole losing its ice and the actual land becoming available. ;)
@@RavishingBeyond The problem with ice melting is not only about land loss. If that were the case this would not be such a dangerous prospect.
The term " the science is settled" should make any science minded individual cringe. "When you find yourself on the side of the majority its time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
Sam Romano. It's not the most watertight aphorism, and I doubt Twain was referring to scientists when he said it. Besides which, the scientific consensus on climate change has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
Yes, that famous scientist Mark Twain XD
Mark Twain? The WRITER? I don’t think you should be backing yourself up with quotes from the 19th century to try and validate your point.
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 .
What year Do sell the rest of us on it was the Highest record temp ? Hint it was in the 1900s
that in fact is not true
There is scientific consensus about earth’s climate change but there’s no consensus about Human’s impact on it.