Climate Change

Climate ChangeThe Climate Change series explains how greenhouse gases work, looks at alternative theories to climate change, and debunks the huge number of urban myths that are zipping round the Internet.

A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics.

Also looks at alternative hypotheses put forward by real, professional climate researchers, and the findings of real, professional climate researchers who disagree with them.

Discusses the urban myths spawned by two iconic films - An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Whatever you "believe" about climate change, there is no excuse for the kind of exaggerations, fallacies and fabrications we see in films like these.

The aim of the author is to cut through the junk science designed to evangelize this issue, and show what the actual scientific research shows us.

The author is a YouTube activist named Potholer, who also made the series From Big Bang to Us: Made Easy.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 3 hours, 18 minutes)

286
7.69
12345678910
Ratings: 7.69/10 from 13 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tanzanos-Eleytheros/100002217607141 Tanzanos Eleytheros

    Thanks once more for a very interesting documentary! :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEQSGXV4PGCDVDL2QY4QMP2M6A Anthony Pirtle

    An excellent series of videos.

  • Sion88

    This guy is explaining actual science and is being very reasonable. The issue is still not clear, not in the scientific community and certainly not anywhere else.

    The fact that a few people decided to fake some data and got caught (thankfully) doesn't prove anything either way.

    The research is ongoing and climate change is a very complex subject, no one should get worked up about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    A well put together debunking of several urban myths and how they come about mainly through invested lies and false appeals to authority. Preaching to the converted for me, but anyone who is suspicious about the function of science should watch this and take note. Otherwise his style is cutting, his tone carefully balanced between incredulity and calm like when dealing with children. Made me laugh more than a few times, Cheers Vlatko & TDF.

    Regards, Sam.

  • beals8888

    So why fake it at all why? co2 is what living thing do when thay grow and what is the sun doing after all it is the heat for it that warms the earth. and it seems to me all thay what to do is make a co2 tax , tax life it self! lol in the 1970 thay said iceage was coming, allways sky is falling. I think this is nuts, ITS THE SUN NOT CO2! IT IS THE SUN NOT CO2! LOOK AT THE SUN, JUST LOOK AT IT!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    Right, firstly don't look directly at the sun it can damage your eyes, secondly, the basic physics described in the first 2 parts adequately explain that CO2 and other carbon gases, along with methane, pollution and even water vapour do certainly have an effect on the climate, as does the solar output. Thirdly, you have completely missed the point of the whole series, in that you are so sure in your conviction. I advise you watch the whole thing again and listen carefully to what the narrative is telling you, and the basis of those assertions. Like he says don't take his word for it! do some research for yourself, then give us your informed opinion.

    Or if you like, tell me, exactly how do you know?

    Regards, Sam.

  • http://www.facebook.com/CruzWorldWide Juan Cruz

    It is not the sun, that too was proven wrong! Check Iain Stewart climate wars. Weight you options: what happens if you it is real and we fail to act? Will you have another earth to live in? Climate will affect water, what will you drink? Climate change will affect food supplies, what will you eat? Weight your options Beals8888.

  • beals8888

    Again sky is falling right, act on what! so a warmer earth means less food? water? if say we did stop all co2 what then hmm the earth would be dead . is that Weight for you lol ! with respect beals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Samuel-Morrissey/627791008 Samuel Morrissey

    What if the climate is meant to be heating up and we take action that prevents it? (I think we have a somewhat inflated view of our capabilities if we think that this is even possible currently either way) The point is more research is needed, and is being done. The jury is still out on this. On the other hand there are much better and less grandiose reasons to curb pollution - basically if we keep on poisoning the oceans, atmosphere and earth life for our species (and quite a few others) is going to become decidedly uncomfortable.

    Regards, Sam.

  • beals8888

    ok i know what your saying but we are running out of oil fast so maybe 50 years we will using other means of energy so if it is co2 .so co2 will fall then. if we dont kill every one by then with war.

  • Brian King

    I'm generally a big fan of Potholer's videos. Usually very well laid out, and very plainly stated. And usually quite verifiable. I'm looking forward to this one.

  • http://twitter.com/AstraStarr AstraStarr

    from my blog at AstraStarr dot com Does global warming exist, or is it a ruse by leftists to perpetuate some sort of climate scheme? Well, I feel, IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is a proven fact that vast numbers of species, plant, animal and otherwise, are in danger of extinction. Environmental degradation and pollution has permanently damaged eco-systems, water and air quality. This is all common knowledge, and regardless of how one feels about climate change, pollution is harmful to global health- undisputed fact. Why then is the proof of, or lack there of, one aspect of our earth's state such a deal breaker? If indeed global warming is an inaccurate scientific judgement, then does this justify pollution carte blanc? Conversely, if climate change is real, then does that now give environmentalists permission to focus only on carbon emissions and neglect other global deprivations? Go ahead and ask yourself, considering it is impossible to 100% validate these assertions about the earth's life cycles and our effect on them, does it matter; it being the argument itself and it's conflict feeding priority? Will mattering or not suddenly make pollution, smog, chemicals, and deforestation reversible and the earth any better?

  • Jane Doe

    Climate change is a natural part of how the earth works, many changes over the last few billion years...

    BUT

    you can't possibly think that dumping millions of tonnes of pollution into the atmosphere is having no affect.

    Common sense.

  • drinker69

    All the gases and poisons we humans pump up into the sky in the form of pollution is not the cause of climate change. Seasons are the cause of climate change. Climate change(or the thought thereof) is caused by mainstream media trying to deflect people's attention to issues that affect them caused by other people with no souls. People will gasp loudly when someone on TV shows them a piece of ice falling 20ft into the water from Antarctica and start devising ways to save the world but won't say boo when someone starts another war or continually bends you over financially and gives it to you dry in the butt. The pollution from cars, farts, industry and bombs goes harmlessly into the sky, through the atmosphere, into the stratsophere where it diffuses infinitely into the universe to swirl around with the extraterrestrials who won't come and fkkn help us not destroy ourselves. So pollute away because climate change is a sham. You think someone in a wartorn, poverty stricken toilet gives a hoot who pollutes. I speak the truth. I do not wear a tin foil hat. Its a hollowed out armadillo shell from the 60s. Damn you Al Gore. Damn you.

  • tomregit

    You gotta make your comments more "out there", (outré?). I'm startin to get you, I'm feelin' ya man. You are seriously funny man, sofa king funny!

  • dhjudas

    Having watched so, oh so many documentaries, from both the realistic nuetral perspective type through to both extremist points of view on the climate change dilema. Not to mention numerious articles i've been following for the past 10 years that have never been at all "related" to the climate issue, but have kept in mind and think it is indeed related perhaps. I've come to a potential theory...

    1: Nasa reported about 2 years ago give or take that earth was experiencing an unexpected and currently unexplained increase in energy bombardmen, cosmic radiation, beyond that of the normal amount we usually have experienced prior to 2000-2005. They reported that it has been steadily increasing, they don't beleive it'll be problematic (or so it was stated in the article).

    2: Magnetic Storms or Magnetic Polar shifts have been recorded and in realtime today are wildly getting spun around, while this is still argued when or how fast something like this could occur, from 6 hours to taking hundreds of thousands of years to make a complete swap, doesn't matter, in the meantime while it's in the process of flipping, the magnetic shield weakens, gaping holes appear, and this lets in significantly more energy as well (likely contributing to #1 above).

    3: Nasa also reported strange and sudden activity "recently" on all the other planets in the solar system, with noticeable increase in temperatures, as well as "storms" either weather or magnetic/eletrically charged, showing up too. This i find very intrigueing.

    4: Our place in the galaxy isn't set in stone, nor is the galaxy, Scientists today that are able to study our position within have started expressing that earth along with the solar system obviously, has traveled through the various energy and dust zones including the massive galatic spiral arms which in places are heavily charged, it is no doubt that if we were slowly migrating into one of these areas, that there could be a considerably effect, some have even suggested that this could account for massive changes to earth and it's inhabitants, including reasons for mass extinctions for no apparent reasons.

    5: Solar, The sun is the true sorce of all our heat and light energy, without it the earth would grow cold and oventually freeze (taking quite a significant number of years to do so due to the geothermal energy that would remain). Common Sense woud suggest that any change in the suns light/heat/energy output would significantly change temperatures or other things we may not be aware of for earth as well as other planets.

    In conclusion, i think some of these things are either being ignored or consideraed unrelated by numerous "climitologists". The larger picture is more difficult to prove. But i only listed off 5 very basic things that are mostly outside potential impacts. Among all the material of watched and read, the most common issue i'm seeing is the lack of cooperation and working together from all aspects of science. They continue to concentrate on one thing and totally disreguard anything that Partially or MAY have a direct contributing impact. I really think all areas of science need to sit down and have a damn good discussion EVEN if some of the damn scientists think there is no way Science "Z" has any impact on science "B" for example...

  • moonminbird

    HAHAHA...brilliant, you really made me laugh..thanks

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001841012507 Ivan Croatia

    the new topic in our local alternative group is new news that northatlantic current and norvegian current are off!? does anybody know a documentary on golf curent and those currents, I watched one last year cant find it, they are wessel of our planet and climate. Do you think this katastrofic winter in europe is caused by that???

  • capriciouz

    Uh, the issue IS clear. You're taking carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas - that has been stored underground, entirely removed from our ecosystem - and reintroducing it into our atmosphere.

    You shouldn't need anything beyond a minor grasp of very basic common sense to understand how clear cut of an issue this is.

    Lastly, no one "faked" data. They were suspected of it but were proven to be innocent of any and all wrongdoing. It's this kind of parroting of lies which does our society such a great disservice. You sit there so confident with your conclusion and yet demonstrably prove you haven't the slightest clue of even the most basic concepts regarding the issue.

    And THAT is the main problem in America today. It's like you folks ENJOY being misinformed. It disgusts me. Our behavior is damaging our planet, our species, and all living things. Yet you so bravely insert speculation where there absolutely is room for NONE.

  • capriciouz

    "The hockey stick graph was prominently featured in the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001, and became an iconic symbol of that report and of the scientific consensus on climate change. The methodologies which underlie the hockey stick, as well as numerous papers with similar results, have since become the focus of much controversy. Individuals and groups opposed to the scientific consensus have attempted to use this controversy to advance their views.[6] A 2006 report by the United States National Academy of Sciences supported the conclusions represented by the graph, especially during the period subsequent to 1600 AD, but was critical of the manner in which results from earlier periods were communicated.[7] Mann has said his findings have been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources."[8] More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original graph, and almost all agreed that the warmest decade in the last thousand years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[9]"

    Fallacious claims. But, as usual, that's all anti-scientific minded people can do to try and dissuade the general public from entrusting literally the only source of technological advancement. You are the epitome of a m***n. Science operates on evidence—NOTHING more. Now, I hope you realize: if you have a problem with the evidence, you have a problem with reality.

    Now please, stop proudly parading your ignorance.

  • fhade

    You can't 'damage' the planet through man-made global waring. It will just transform into something else naturally. It will become more conducive for certain life form on earth who will then thrive in the new Earth.

    One life forms 'damage' is another life forms 'repaired'. I'm sure they have as much rights to this planet as we do.

  • KooKookaChoo

    Wow, what a concept: researching a topic before you raise your blood pressure spewing crap with such emotion. This happens all the time -- really, a quick wiki search will give you at least some information that is publicly moderated - it's a start anyway (check out the sources section for more info or the quality of info presented), and it'll save face when you decide to attack someone with stupidity.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    @drinker69
    You said it all, and you said it well,much too close to the truth for some. xxx

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    Read 'drinker69' comment way down this list - he has summed it up in a nutshell!

  • robertallen1

    More information is openly available than ever before and, as I mentioned in at least one previous post, since the 1890's we haven't had a church (even the "Church" of Scientology) powerful enough to keep it under wraps, so why are people in general as ignorant as they've always been and why should they even want to remain so?

  • robertallen1

    I have neither the knowledge nor the qualifications for assessing the situation. However, one of the beauties of this set of documentaries is that it shows two basic sets of respected and obviously qualified experts coming to two disparate conclusions based on the evidence--and yet there's mutual respect between the two groups. This is science at its finest.

    I wish I could be say something similar about the media' but this documentary also clearly demonstrates how underhanded and despiccable the people in it really are--they will do anything for a headline, except report accurately. I only know that if I were a reporter writing a story on this subject, before going to print, I would subject my article to the same peer review described in these documentaries by submitting it to qualified representatives of both sides for critiquing--and if my editor didn't like it, I would kill the story and if he insisted that it be published without such review, I would resign, for in that case, I'd rather be doing something else.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7F44BELC6QGOBZR62PF5RNMLQY sean c

    I think there is one thing we can all agree on....climate changes. I don't think we play a significant role in how the climate behaves but we probably have a minor effect. Pollution on the other hand needs sorting out. When one looks at the offending greenhouse gasses in parts per million it's absurd that Carbon Dioxide has been singled out as the bad guy. That could not be further from the truth if on understands simple chemistry and it's actual effect on the weather systems and climate. The scientists from the Gore camp took the view that Co2 was responsible for warming when elementary science tells us that Co2 levels only rise following warming. Hmmm...what's wrong with this picture. Certainly it has created a nice little earner for the likes of Al Gore in the trading of Carbon units and taxing. There was no vested interest on Gore's part and I will not have it that he is any less of a saint for trying to make a few bucks out of our misery given he was saving our collective arses. Or was he? Nah, he was looking to make a killing in the market by selling us the air we breath. The ultimate scam and us folk, dickheads that we all must be, swallowed it. We deserve everything we get because we are idiots.

  • drinker69

    smoking weed with scotch is good

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/P47M6CZ2PJZ4LYQTGE22VNBKKA rohithc99

    Words' CO2 has caused many climate changes in the past'. That is when I and many rational people know they are dealing with an ideological zealot rather than 'representing the science.'

    good thing I didn't waste 3 hours of my time and bandwidth/

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    im pretty sure he was beng facetious...at least i hope he was.

  • wald0

    This is one of the most scientifically based documentaries I have ever seen on this site, hats off to the maker. The true essence of science is tediously strict standards that require hours and hours of repetition and intense scrutiny, all so you can average out the results, which at times feels like intentionally dulling a knife you just spent weeks sharpening. It is necessary though, because we are looking for underlying trends, not the results of one or two spectacular events. For it is in those underlying trends that the laws that rule the physical universe manifest themselves, and we get the priviledge of discovering them, man I love science.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VNQ2NZAIGAEIG6HDXKY376JDXY Ollie

    Excellent documentary. I'm no expert on climate change but it's great to finally have someone lay out the facts in a balanced and non-sensationalist manner.

  • wald0

    Just checked out potholer54's youtube channels, this guy is brilliant. I love his debunk channel even more than his regular channel. Of course you have to admit the creationists serve up some real soft balls for him so its no wonder he hits one grand slam after the other. He isn't even a scientist, just a science journalist, yet he does a better job of sticking to peer reviewed, non sensationalized science than many Phd's I have heard talk. Because he is a journalist and has studied communication he knows how to express complicated science in simple ways, how to build analogies poeple relate to, etc. This is a skill most scientists lack, they study science and computation not communications and journalism. If we had more media like this guy maybe scientific theories wouldn't get so distorted and be so misunderstood by the general public. Can't wait for his ice age vid.

  • Jack1952

    Watch the documentary. It has a very clear explanation of the 1970 ice age news stories.

  • Jack1952

    It took hundreds of millions of years of vegetable decay to become the petroleum and coal deposits locked into the earth. These are carbon deposits that have lain dormant all this time. In the last 150 years a huge percentage of this carbon has been burned releasing co2 into the atmosphere, unprecedented in the history of earth. This is a phenomena that scientists believe could cause changes in the climate.

  • Jack1952

    There are many influences on our climate. co2 is one of them also. Your list of 5 are items that we have no control over. co2 emissions are not only under our control but the huge volume of these emissions may indeed have something to say about any changes in our climate. Ignoring this may have serious consequences.

  • Jack1952

    Piltdown man was a hoax, also. The scientific community nows realizes that evolution is incorrect.

    Wait a minute! Upon research, I found that science stills believes that evolution is an accurate depiction of the growth of life on earth. Maybe one hoax has no bearing on the veracity of science.

  • Jack1952

    This documentary is presented in a very rational manner. If you watched this you would know this.

    If co2 has caused climate change in the past why doesn't the carbon emissions of modern society have no bearing in changes today?

    You would have wasted your time watching this doc. You already have all the answers so those 3 hours would have been lost on you.

  • Jack1952

    The big oil companies are making huge profits in the consumption of petroleum products. They stand the most to lose if we curtailed consumption of their products. Anyone who disputes the claims of global warming must be doing so under the direction of big oil. They are making a killing polluting the air we breath and us folks, dickheads that we all are, are letting them do it. We deserve everything we get because.......never mind.

    Your "follow the money" argument can be used in any way a person wants to use it.

  • robertallen1

    Also British jingoism was apparently a major factor behind the Piltdown man hoax.

  • http://profiles.google.com/langille.kate kate langille

    Eye opening!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEQSGXV4PGCDVDL2QY4QMP2M6A Anthony Pirtle

    Potholer demolishes Monckton.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil

    I believe what I am told. If what I am told is wrong, I believe the person who told me it was wrong. Wash, rinse, repeat. Life is so much erasier on the brain if you let others think for you. Signed: far too many people I know.

  • robertallen1

    Fine, but what do you do if the experts disagree and you know next to nothing about the subject?

  • Hodd

    Learn about the subject?

  • robertallen1

    That's certainly one way and probably the best. But understanding climatic science to the point of being able to render any worthwhile determination takes years of study. So in such a case, how can one become at least a fairly well-informed layman?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    The necessity of proof *before* action, combined with the apparent inability to settle the question of who is actually telling the truth, pretty much insures that nothing will ever get done. But that's politics for ya!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    Besides... We'll never willingly give up our toys just to save some puny little space rock! So it doesn't really matter how much we know, or who is telling the truth. Our nature is to go on insisting that the cause -technology- will eventually provide the cure; when, in reality, all technology has done thus far is to make MORE. And MORE is all that mankind really gives a **** about.

  • Jack1952

    Whatever the motivation behind the Piltdown hoax, it does not invalidate the theory of evolution as some creationists have claimed. In the same way, climategate, whatever their motives were, does not render all of the science supporting global warming invalid also.

  • robertallen1

    Of course it doesn't. However, it is one of the rare instances of a hoax ostensibly perpetrated by actual scientists, people who should have known better--and not as a joke. In contrast, creationists do this all the time; just go to any creationist website.

    One thing about creationists that bothers me very much is that there are well-educated, credentialed people in its ranks who deliberately distort and lie for their cause, thereby placing their allegiance to church/religion over their obligation to intellectual honesty. This is far more egregious than speaking without knowledge or even just believing in creationism.

  • StevenLJones

    The news media treatment of the climate scientists is enough to convince me that the oil companies are making big money and don't want the party to be over. I use Daily Science to get the latest on climate science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Booti-Time/100003322870347 Booti Time

    The guys effort to put some science in the climate change documentary world is very admirable. I wish docs on the subject talked a bit more about runaway climate change, positive feedback (which was explained a bit in the first or second video) and permafrost carbon forcing, which in my opinion are all very important to be aware of. Debunking parts are kinda fun to watch if u can follow, but not particularly interesting. By the way, what has the guy against Al Gore?! I love the guy!
    Ah since we talking about oil companies, Shell is trying to start drilling operations in the artic region, you really dont have to be an ecologist to understand on how many levels this is wrong. if u have time help out greenpeace with their artic program.

  • TreemanTop

    It's interesting that creationalists want to dismiss the whole climate science based on 2 scandals.

    Good thing we didn't apply the same thinking to the Bible when copernicus saw the stars through his telescope and discovered that the 'heavens' could not be 'above' (which is what the Bible states)

    If you're looking for scandals which dismiss beliefs then the bible is full of them.

  • Another21stCenturySlave

    fox news & msnbc..haaaaa..u make me laugh..if thats ur source of information, i think u will find tht u are the 1 tht is, infact, il-informed

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/33N5YZFAOZ5AWT63RE3YELA4QA Herman

    It's not just shell... They are all there :'(

  • http://twitter.com/nutbastard nutty b

    cracking down on oil only serves to raise the price of oil. the relaxing of regulation lowers the price of oil. you have it backwards - no one is more interested in the restriction and regulation of oil consumption than oil companies.

  • Rocky Racoon

    alla that money the feds gave the banks is being used for speculation that is what is driving up the cost of gasoline.
    RR

  • Rocky Racoon

    Once the perafrost melts and all that methane is released it is all over and with plans to increase tar sands production four fold by 2020 well that is game over as Hanson of NASA says..
    Cheers,
    RR

  • Nikola Živanovi?

    In part 2, from around 08:30 to 09:30, it speaks about influence of airplanes on temperature. If we allow planes to fly only by day, in theory the temperature would come down, right?

  • Bvkaos

    So driving up the prices of gasoline has nothing to do with the oil peaks in western controlled country's ?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/H2BSLYIHKM4YVKHZRHIWLCTVSI Kitana

    He keeps talking about how politicians, journalists, etc should not be trusted as reputable sources on the subject of global warming because they will just politicize the subject instead of just sticking to the hard data, and will only pull out pieces of information that appeal to their already formed personal opinions - but he IS himself just a journalist - not a climatologist, and already has his opinion on global warming and has pulled articles and sources (although they are all reputable sources) that support his already molded findings. So should we really trust him either? No.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537027608 Pablo Sánchez

    Sorry... but the format (plain spoken slideshow) is absolutely boring and demands too much attention for not just fall asleep.

  • StevenLJones

    So check out the scientific journals yourself. But most people would rather have someone else make things very simple for them.

  • PickMyName

    I remember learning about global warming in the 1970's, but the only thing I heard about a coming ice age was Nuclear Winter, where a nuclear war might put enough into the air to block the sun. I was a school kid and made the joke that to stop global warming we could set off a few nukes!
    Is that what you meant when you said, "in the 1970 thay said iceage was coming"?

  • PickMyName

    Why were they teaching global warming in the 1970's, years before Gore? They started studying it in the 1920's, as anyone as obviously educated as you should know.
    I'm clearly not as educated as you; can you tell me why Co2 would increase *after* warming? That doesn't make sense to me, unless the warming releases sequestered gasses, like what's now happening in Alaska.
    And yes, climate changes, but it hasn't changed significantly in what, 11,000 years? Until we upset the balance by releasing all these sequestered greenhouse gasses, I mean.
    And can you tell me why releasing -- tons? -- thousands of tons? -- of greenhouse gasses every year doesn't have an impact? Because it seems obvious to me that it would. But I know that just because something "seems obvious" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true.

    Thank you in advance for your educated answers.

  • PickMyName

    @drinker99, you said, "smoking weed with scotch is good"

    Clearly, certain greenhouse gasses should be increased.

  • PickMyName

    Oil corporations *want* restrictions?!? The price of oil has a direct relationship with supply and demand?!?

    Why are corporations fighting so hard to stop regulation? Why do all the economists, WSJ, etc., say the price of oil is based on speculation? Let's hope you become the next King of the World, so it will work the way you think it does, and the rest of us wish it did.

  • PickMyName

    Bvkaos says: "So driving up the prices of gasoline has nothing to do with the oil peaks in western controlled country's ?"

    That's what the economists say in papers like the Wall Street Journal.
    It came up most recently when people were saying that Obama should do something about the price of gasoline, and it was repeatedly pointed out that the president has little say in the matter; it's the speculators.

  • PickMyName

    You should check out "There’s No Tomorrow". It's a cartoon!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4HRTAHZSOVJXTQ6P4UHAJU4WLQ Thomas Moore

    As if "scientists" are so morally superior and objective....part of the problem is that so many of these studies eliminate contradicting evidence. Scientists are just like every other person - they want funding and to be renown. Modern science evolved from Darwin who was not even a scientist...so he would say that Darwin is an id**t because he had no scientific training to make the theories around cross-species evolution. Since Darwin wasn't a scientist, he would say that Darwin's whole argument based on the simplicity of the cell shows that Darwin was completely off base pretending science.

  • Lary9

    Your disclaimer that Darwin wasn't even a scientist and "had no scientific training" is disingenuous and largely misleading. In the mid-1800s, science and its methodology were still emerging from the Dark Ages. Most sciences that we take for granted today weren't even formally known yet. Many fields were just beginning.
    From Wikipedia:
    "Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[9] Additionally, his five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist."
    Your comment reveals that you have opinions in abundance, but not much by way of facts. Most critics of science today lack even a basic understanding of its methods and are given to spouting cartoon-like criticisms of science and scientists. I'm not saying that you do---but many people obviously have other agendas. As a retired science educator, I get tired of listening to such nonsense about Charles Darwin, a man of such enormous stature and importance to civilization itself.

  • robertallen1

    Hear! Hear!

    I'm sickened by it too along with its mephitic spread. Indeed, Darwin was one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known and the fundamental structure which he codified and limned has undergone no change within the last 150 years, only more detail, fine-tuning and elegance.

    If you don't mind, I would like to ask you two questions:

    1. As a retired science educator, are you familiar with Dr. Euenie Scott and if so, what is your opinion of her?

    2. Would I be prying if I asked you what branch of science you taught or whether you were basically a generalist?

  • Lary9

    I know Eugenie Scott personally and have an inscribed volume of her first book, "Evolution vs. Creationism". I also belong to the NCSE and I admire her very much. I have argued with her and others that it is time for us to become science commandos of public continuing education, especially in regards to evolution...because I believe the public that denies it, does so largely because they don't have a firm grasp of even its simplest principles. They think they do---but they do not. They have a notional grasp of its basic topics and those are perpetuated by their own silly social grapevines.
    I taught general science which, in the small school system I was in, included physics (my original major) chemistry and biology...and earth science on occasion. In fact, I just ranged over the epistemological landscape of scientific method, stressing its processes as a way of engaging the world in most things. I believe that science, as a way of knowing, is potentially consciousness altering.

  • robertallen1

    I've spoken to Dr. Scott only once and liked my conversation so much that I took out a membership in the NCSE although I am not a teacher and have no science background. As a matter of fact, my background is in the liberal arts--and I've decided to spend part of my twilight years curing my weakness in matters scientific. I'd like to think I have a basic grasp of its principles, especially as they apply to evolution, but by no means would I presume to discuss the subject knowledgably with people such as Richard Dawkins, Kenneth R. Miller and, of course you. That's why when I meet someone who has devoted his life to real science, I generally ask questions (and hopefully intelligent ones) rather than make idiotic and ignorant statements like those religees who seem to be the bane of both our existences.

    I have read "Evolution vs. Creationism" and recommend it not only as an introduction to basic evolution, but also to every Bible-toting creationist ignoramus. By the way, have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers and if so, what did you think of it?

    Anyway, Kitzmiller forever.

  • http://twitter.com/conford1954 Arthur Putter

    Sorry but I cant respect the opinion of someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail". When he then refers to the "attacks" which occurred on 9/11, I just don't want to listen to him anymore - period.

  • De Neice Kenehan

    The producer is named POTHOLER? Really? I suppose one cannot accuse him of being on the industry payroll. The deniers are more slick. You typically find their talking heads linked directly to dirty fuel or to tobacco flacking firms.