The 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.
why don't you moerate criminals who enter politics and kills millions?
I heard pen is mightier than the sword. what about 'big mouth' of policy makers who engineer wars? "war on terror" that is more powerful than the pen. so my pen wont kill innocents. might be with witten word I can shut down a few scmbags websites, coporates 9tesla inc etc) and others who are promoting social media crpa of thsese fake guys who are now leaders
If you believe everything you are told; then you believe that oil comes from "fossils" and decayed matter. That definition alone made me think that if the public believes oil is a fossil fuel; it must be valuable. And it sure is!
ANY discussion of so called climate change that fails to address:
a. Worldwide GeoEngineering/Weather Modification as adding to the problem
b. the reason "global warming" was changed to "climate change" and c. longer term climate cycles, are like talking about an omelet without eggs.
Large corporations want severely increased regulations that hinder their smaller faster better competitors nipping at their heels that can ill afford to deal with all the red tape (socialism communism red is always about getting rid of the competition). When these large corporations have hit hard times and want relief from enviro regulation, it usually means their competition has been devastated. Thus the big boys have little to fear in getting regulatory relief and before the cure that saved them kills them.
NASA is a joke. When they put out videos of their silly hairspray girls supposedly in the space station when actually in a vomit comet jet aircraft, which you can see the up and down effects of the aircraft creating the weightlessness during the filming of the supposed space station residents, you have to pause and question what you are being fed. When one of the guys slips up, states to a kid allowed to ask a question, that they are in Calif(?) ... and when you see air bubbles travelling up through the water in a supposed space walk, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING out of NASA. It is just another means of consuming your money so you have less of it, so less free to battle big bro with. Unfortunately the joke is on us.
Yes, indeed, investigate for yourselves. Investigate the fake everything you are being fed, including the very GMO food you eat.
I agree, weather modification has been adding to the problem without any way to regulate it or test the results. Now HARVARD is going to put calcium carbonate into the atmosphere (stratospheric injection) then test the results to block the sun. Blocking the sun will cool the earth like volcanic ash is their theory. Can't wait.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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. 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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry... but the format (plain spoken slideshow) is absolutely boring and demands too much attention for not just fall asleep.
You should check out "There’s No Tomorrow". It's a cartoon!
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.
So check out the scientific journals yourself. But most people would rather have someone else make things very simple for them.
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?
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..
alla that money the feds gave the banks is being used for speculation that is what is driving up the cost of gasoline.
So driving up the prices of gasoline has nothing to do with the oil peaks in western controlled country's ?
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.
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.
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.
It's not just shell... They are all there :'(
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.
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.
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.
Fine, but what do you do if the experts disagree and you know next to nothing about the subject?
Learn about the subject?
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?
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!
Potholer demolishes Monckton.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read 'drinker69' comment way down this list - he has summed it up in a nutshell!
im pretty sure he was beng facetious...at least i hope he was.
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.
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?
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???
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...
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.
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.
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!
HAHAHA...brilliant, you really made me laugh..thanks
You said it all, and you said it well,much too close to the truth for some. xxx
smoking weed with scotch is good
@drinker99, you said, "smoking weed with scotch is good"
Clearly, certain greenhouse gasses should be increased.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Climate change is a natural part of how the earth works, many changes over the last few billion years...
you can't possibly think that dumping millions of tonnes of pollution into the atmosphere is having no affect.
Watch the documentary. It has a very clear explanation of the 1970 ice age news stories.
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"?
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.
An excellent series of videos.
Thanks once more for a very interesting documentary! :)