Climate Change
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.
Hang on a minute.
Potholer says earlier on the video that a doubling of co2 will lead to a global temperature rise of 1 degree C, but then later says a doubling of co2 will lead to a global temperature rise of between 2-4.5 degrees C.
So which is it?
ordinarily I wouldn't even bother, I would assume it was just a small statistical error on Potholers part.
But he has gone to extreme lengths to show the same contradictory errors by other climate commentators.
So what gives. So far great video compilation, but you just lost a few points in my book.
I hope the rest of the presentation doesn't have any more of these contradictions.
or maybe I misunderstood something.
I'm late to the game here as this is an old video, but clarification would be good.
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.
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.
Sorry... but the format (plain spoken slideshow) is absolutely boring and demands too much attention for not just fall asleep.
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.
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..
Cheers,
RR
alla that money the feds gave the banks is being used for speculation that is what is driving up the cost of gasoline.
RR
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.
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.
Potholer demolishes Monckton.
Eye opening!
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/
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.
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.