How Sure Are Climate Scientists, Really?

[@veritasium]

This is very well done, great job! It seems to me whatever your inclinations on this topic you can watch it and learn something without being put off by bias, exaggeration, appeal to emotion etc.

[@rickpolar]

Thanks for the recommendation Derek

[@vgarzareyna]

Came here thanks to you, thanks!

[@remarkablysquare3216]

Great to see a big Science KZbinr like you finding this guy. All his work is really fantastic!

[@ommsterlitz1805]

Well the USA is responsible for 25% of CO2 worldwide and China 35% so with these 2 even if Europe was 0% it would still not change the rise in temperatures and ice caps melting because of US and China

[@moosnatedog]

You need to give this video a shoutout!

[@talideon]

I'd like to point out that a huge part of the problems here isn't scientists, but poor reporting in the media, where there's a tendency to latch onto studies and treat them as pronouncements rather than... studies.

[@icarusunited]

Media been doing this since there Crier days in the town square.

[@namelessking8905]

As they say. "Fear sells".

[@bcbwilla]

Yes this is very true, especially in the case of the reporting of individual studies while completely ignoring the context of the overall literature on the subject

[@garyfindlay5503]

I am 62 and even in length of my adult years reporting has suffered a significant drop in professionalism and subject knowledge. I put it down to the pressure of cost efficiencies.

[@joestein1144]

kinda like the BS covid 19...

[@Cscuile]

I really hate how KZbin incentivizes quantity over quality. This is the highest quality video I have ever seen on KZbin, yet it is also the most underrated

[@mongke7858]

There isn't really a way for an algorithm to determine quality so we are stuck with this system.

[@TheDoomWizard]

Feel like you might like my channel too :)

[@spacenuts2781]

All 3 of his other videos have gotten millions of views tf are you talking about

[@giovane_Diaz]

to be honest, I would like him to be able to get some works on curiosity stream, nebula, and other plataforms that can reward different production values than yt and our well known social medias, who just plummet more or less anyone who doesn't gamble at least a little with their sadistic algorithms. I'm more than happy ro support him when my country doesn't mess with every single thing that cross their financial borders

[@wasdwasdedsf]

@@mongke7858 lol theres nothing about the lyiing cultist antiscience frauds that own the social media companies that are unbiased or "its just an algorithm! theyre not doing anything on purpose!"

[@JD1340]

“Defeatist might take comfort in inevitability the way denialist take comfort in uncertainty”. Did you come up with that? Great line!!!!

[@MemerMan]

It’s here! It’s actually here!

[@hamter8707]

this is the last place i'd expect you'd be

[@Cobra-zr2gd]

I like you vids memerman

[@Jmoricy]

@@hamter8707 yeah

[@TabBuddie]

yes

[@giraffeman326]

This will be a day long remembered

[@feandil666]

Thanks, it's excellent that you remind people that being uncertain about something is not the same as having no clue at all about what will happen

[@brendawilliams8062]

Not everyone selling turnips. Fell off a turnip truck. Lol

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐

[@timothyrussell4445]

It's a question of taking action as opposed to doing nothing.

[@dogbone1065]

Not necessarily.

[@vgr7126]

So you reaserch, process data, create graphics, animate them, write compelling scripts, narrate them with a nice sounding voice, edit the videos and many more things I can’t even imagine that go into these wonderful works of art. It’s just so impressive. Mad props for you and people who work with you

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money... This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6nQhYmkmcqboKM&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@timothyrussell4445]

Yes, anyone can say anything they like and sound convincing with the right props.

[@ZijnShayatanica]

You made a statement in the Ice Age chapter that hit me hard. About how, in the Enlightenment Era, we evolved the sciences so as to find the truth & not simply trust authority figures to tell us what their version of the truth is... Only for us to be falling into the same patterns today, w/ skewed reporting & politicization of scientific research. I appreciate this video so much & am excited to explore your channel further!

[@mikem.s.1183]

5 months late but: Great comment. 👌 Fully agree

[@passerby4507]

The true achievement of science is not that everyday people can become experts on a whim, but to give them a legitimate reason to trust the experts. So yes and no, you *always* need to trust authorities in a society, but scientists are a better kind of authority.

[@TheMrTangamandapio]

it's almost as if taking a central, neutral stance and explaining it thoroughly can change minds, instead of yelling and berating whoever doesn't agree with you, boiling it down to "you have to be ignorant and stupid to not agree with me" thank you for this video, this was better than just informative.

[@davidjorgensen877]

"you have to be ignorant and stupid to not agree with me" - Yes there's a ton of that going on, but many individuals will interpret the message that "skepticism is healthy" as justification to assume that their personal skepticism validates their own self-serving conspiracy theories - and that leads to a similar or worse result. As proscribed by this video, we need to grasp and embrace the distinction between intelligent, open-minded questioning vs. the general vilification of science and academia altogether - and, sadly, a frighteningly large number of people fail to do so.

[@fermiLiquidDrinker]

@Myth Tree And just who, or what, is "they?"

[@fermiLiquidDrinker]

@Myth Tree That still doesn't tell me who "they" are.

[@Dawgsofwinter]

@@fermiLiquidDrinker That THEY is those loud vocal groups that stand behind people with megaphones telling them they are "evil" because they don't like what they are saying or they feel the audience is ignoring their antics. Its the people who create the "Gretas" in the world to go out and spew their political/scientific views. The They's are the fools who quote the Bible and use it as justifications for their Racism. And yes I put all those in the same category. In the end things like this will probably sit at a middle ground and there really isn't a way around that. By just listening to the loudest screamers or trying to get the most sensational 15 min of fame both sides make the problem worse through inaction and create the bar fights a lot of US politics and the politics on this issue have become. Does research need done into carbon emission and reduction of. YUP But it needs to produce results not 500 page studies of nothing that can be replicated outside of a lab for less than 50K (50,000) an ounce (yes in some cases an exaggeration or miss representation but in many an under estimation). Or such foolishly extreme measures millions are put out of work to starve. The real world problems with those ideas can be just as bad as the so called solutions. Oh they can just change to the new green industries... that is the dumbest argument ever. Where are these companies that are hiring in those numbers. Do their skills transfer (some don't some do) the real world problems with those ideas can be just as bad as the so called solutions. Companies such as this will take years to develop into the sizes to justify the sheer number of workers they would force out. Greta's little solution would have bankrupted more than a couple of the countries in the process and likely driven their populations so far against a solution as to have reversed any good done. So called Green Energy is a big victim of the studies with no resolution. We can produce the power. But not reliably on call at the times and in the quantities desired/needed. We can produce more than enough power to cover those times too in all honesty. What can't be done is storing it. Is research ongoing. We've been searching for the next generation battery since before lithium Ion batteries were even on the market and world wide billions are likely being spent on this. I've seen a couple of interesting alternatives but even they have large issues that will take time. And then we have to find out what side issues do these solutions create (solar has some pretty nasty by products from production I'm told and wind has been showing some worts with birds and the blades being difficult or seriously expensive to recycle at this time if it costs more than you make off it to recycle then its not really recyclable)

[@fermiLiquidDrinker]

@@Dawgsofwinter Now that you explain it, I can see where you're coming from-honestly, your criticisms of current efforts against climate change, and current movements against it, are pretty understandable. First of all, just to get this out of the way, I really hope you understand why people are beginning to yell into megaphones about climate change: nothing substantial at a national, or even worldwide level, has been done to at least mitigate climate change. The situation is getting _very_ desperate, and though it may seem like a lot of people are doing it just for attention, I can assure you they aren't-but their methods are flawed. The current popular movements to reduce the effects of climate change (namely extinction rebellion, but there are plenty of others)-with the way they tend to put focus on simple individual habits, rather than corporations, governments, or even the very roots of capitalism itself-suck; they tend to see humans as divorced from nature, not a part of it, and tend to advocate the use of band-aids such as tax credits to cover the bullet hole of man-made climate change. And you are right that current alternative energy solutions can have some pretty bad side effects that _need_ to be either ridden of, or at least mitigated-I can't deny that-but compared to fossil fuels, those effects almost nothing. From the perspective of a physics undergrad, current research on solar panel tech is looking pretty good, with cleaner, more efficient solar cells being invented on pretty much a monthly basis. (It's worth mentioning that experimental solar panel systems tend to be expensive simply _because_ they're experimental, kind of like how the old point-contact transistor at Bell Labs was _way_ more expensive than a standard transistor you'd solder into a circuit board.) But yeah, at our current rate, renewable energy can't take care of current energy needs-though there is a catch to that: Much of the electricity used at the moment goes towards things like data centers, where corporations have massive servers all under one roof; advertising both on-, and offline (see doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.08.004); and powering mansions for just a couple people. Provided we either oust the current political system with something cooperative-I'd suggest reading Bookchin's _The Ecology of Freedom,_ or checking out Saint Andrewism here on youtube (his video on the current climate movement is fantastic, kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6qbq5iLaJx3asU) for more information-or at least find a better way to manage current resources (such as removing data centers and the like), renewable energy could easily fit the world's power bill. Ultimately, we need action for something that, at the very least, provides for every single person, and makes both a foundation for a sustainable future-to eventually take the bullet out of the wound and suture it up. (Btw I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your argument.)

[@hr9833]

His videos are like a customized, hand-made suit. So hard to make, so long to finish, but in the end the quality is indescribable!

[@aratirao9007]

🔲SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES ENTERTAINING CONTENT LIKE NEIL

[@yuser4440]

And the "scientistic" propaganda is well reiterated, he didn't talk about the climate gate which demonstrate that the problem is not the mediatic process of science data but its ethical credibility itself. And history is badly summarised, with some bad errors, for example, Egyptians didn't develop an alphabet, Phoenicians invented alphabet that I am writing with here and they are not even mentioned. Bye.

[@senorpepper3405]

@@yuser4440 negative b plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac all over 2a

[@yuser4440]

@@senorpepper3405 Math irony, that's smart like a meme. Bye.

[@derekborkent2899]

I agree. It must be very difficult to cherry-pick all the material and stitch together convincing story that Suits the climate warming narrative. Top marks for effort 0 for presenting the real facts.

[@JustHaveaThink]

This is a masterpiece of balanced, pragmatic and rational journalism Neil. Thank you for creating it. I will share it as widely as I can. Dave

[@Graeberwave]

Psychology has been clamoring time and again: we aren’t rational.

[@remicaron3191]

I agree but if this turns into a little change to our way of life and magical techno fixes as you have on your channel it will all be for not. We are facing a dilemma which needs a drastic change to every aspect of human existence to stand a chance, and a very small chance at that, of success and techno fixes are just the same old with a twist. Without actual limits on people and consumption which are across the board and fair we will achieve nothing since some people will fight it to the bitter end. One country has to show the world it can be done and the rest will follow suit but without that guiding light we will all fall in the never ending growth and decay we have created. The time for competition is over for the most part. We are now in the time of learning to truly live with what we have and learning to divide what we have equitably so as to calm the people and make them buy in instead of dividing them and destroying us all. I'm talking to us the internet people since we are the ones causing this problem.

[@alexandermelbaus2351]

Excellent presentation, but it was not balanced and the information is questionable; at 15:30, the world average temperature has increased by one degree in 65 years. The average temperature around the world has only changed by less then 1 degree since 1898, that to me is extremely stable. 1898 -> 1998; CO2 increased from 295ppm to 367ppm = 72ppm 1998 -> 2015; CO2 increased to 403ppm = 36ppm In 17 years, C02 increased by 50% of the previous 100 years in 1998 with no measurable differences in the data for temperature changes. There is no measurable impact of any kind with the increase of CO2 showing any affect on the temperature. Data from Greenland records the hottest days in the 1930's. Sea level is increasing about 20cm over this period (20th Century) and this increase is similar for the previous 100 years and is quite normal over a further time in history. Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics [ 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates - Presentation Video on Global Warming - 30 mins ] [ kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYnbeZmYa5uNna8 ]

[@remicaron3191]

@@alexandermelbaus2351 wow. You do understand that a planet doesn’t react instantly to input right? The El Niño/ La Niña effect alone takes the atmosphere 3 to 6 months to change states. So the warming you think we’ve escaped is on its way in the coming decades. The warming we are seeing now is s from the CO2 emissions from anywhere from as far back as the 1980’s to the 2000’s. That’s why everyone will freak out in the next decades when warming goes super sonic and most people are caught off guard. Like I tell people we will be luck to have a well functioning civilization in 2050 and if we continue very lucky to ever get to 2100. This nonsense the news media tells people about how much time we have to change is exactly that nonsense. The Earth is one big ship and like ocean going vessels it takes a long time to change course and when the course changes it also takes a long time to see the changes. So like Biden taking credit for the vaccinations it was actually Trump who set the ball rolling for Biden’s 100 day success. We have very difficult times ahead and no one’s talking about it because they think someone else is working on it. Unfortunately the only thing we can actually do to make the situation better is stop most of the worlds production and no one really wants to do that. Unless we actually get a true leader somewhere in the world which can show the world the way we will slowly go extinct. We need less jobs, less production, less births, less travel and less of everything except equality. And just in case you think I’m communist I’m not saying complete equality but at least food, shelter and clothing for people along with a minimum amount of power. Obviously it has to come from somewhere and yes that will be the richer people in the world but reality makes it the only way to avoid nuclear war. We also will have to start teaching useful things to our kids like organic farming and removing those lawns in the suburbs to turn into gardens and chicken coops. Of course we won’t give up on research and technology but we will have to focus our RnD into more useful avenues instead of what we do now and try to entice people to buy stuff. We will also have to build rail service and transit to have some way of moving people and goods electrically and pretty much ration everything with the money we have changed into carbon credits which everyone would be allotted an equal amount of our very little budget. The rest of things would be back to the barter system and would mainly rely on people being people to each other. As you can probably tell from what I’ve said here I’m not holding my breath for our specie to survive and cities especially large ones may face a very difficult time. Anyway I’m sure the decision makers of the world will have another plan which will promise everyone a great job and more growth and great space colonization around the universe which will be very optimistic and will actually be tried but will only speed our end.

[@thomasmoss1066]

@@alexandermelbaus2351 Good Video. Stealing...

[@diatonicdelirium1743]

In the Netherlands we keep a keen eye on the 'rising sea levels', which I put in quotes because there is also a bit of a seesaw effect going on with the land masses, and the fact that much of our land was sea to begin with, thus leading to ground subsidence. So far we're experiencing a very steady 2mm/yr rise since accurate measurements begun in 1890, i.e. the dramatic pictures of sea levels rising are a bit disingenuous when omitting the time scale!

[@mcrand7887]

After 10 Years, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient. Al Gore was wrong, I was worried we might not be around in 2017, given the alarms he was sounding in 2006.

[@diatonicdelirium1743]

@@jje984 That in itself is not such a good measure, as 'we' put in significant effort to fortify and repair our coastal defenses against water. With natural erosion, huge swathes of land would wash away quickly!

[@dp-kz5cs]

The knowledge is scattered about to confuse all. While japan just released the equivalent of 3 Olympic sized pools of radioactive water deemed " safe" heading straight for the great picific garbage patch!! Now we'll have those sea monsters 😂👍🏻 hueberous is what is killing this planet . . .

[@ruyan247]

​@@dp-kz5csthe planet is trying to kill humanity since its existence, we are just retaliating.

[@QwoaX]

@@diatonicdelirium1743 Plus, we tend to use current-day coastlines for maps with historic borders, which creates an illusion that coastlines were static the last couple of millenia and maps pre satelite imagery or at least pre aviation weren't that accurate, so we can't really use these anyway. Interestingly enough, some places are rising compared to the sea level due to plate tectonics or the glacial isostatic adjustment. Sweden for example probably has gained more land over the same time than the Netherlands without doing anything for it.

[@00dfm00]

This guy deserves a team behind him so he can crank out more of these epic videos! Love the meditative tone and pacing, the transitions, visuals, and the thought process of the message.

[@fredneecher1746]

It's an example of what is known as 'peripheral persuasion', that is, it's all in the nice presentation and nothing in the content.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

@@fredneecher1746 So sorry that you missed the relevance. 🙄

[@chrisdoe6890]

@@fredneecher1746 just like Al Gore but not like Greta.

[@MKeehl23]

And that's how stats biased results

[@agentorange6085]

I thought it was insufferable. I stopped the video just to make this comment, now I'm outta here...

[@DataDash]

It’s felt like a lifetime, but I’m super excited to watch this, Neil! Your work doesn’t go unnoticed my friend 😀 Thank you for all that you do

[@billion2626]

Hello there

[@BubblingOnion]

Sup checkmark.

[@antg1597]

Haha, quick recap: the trailer was released on May 15, 2018. < kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZCqlaKOdqeiiJI > But it's amazing and totally worth the wait.

[@giraffeman326]

This is more exiting than the time Bill Wurtz returned

[@FinZ_2002]

Litecoin!!!!!!

[@SidenoteChannel]

Thank you for making this. This was beyond expectations, although I've watched your previous works.

[@stenbak_5449]

You haven’t made a video in 7 months please come back .

[@jeremyashford2145]

Your confirmation bias is showing.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐

[@HelloIAmJo]

As a biologist who has since had parents fall into QAnon, I crave well-made explanations that can MAYBE rattle their silo. I appreciate the continued tone of skepticism throughout while still kindly and compassionately guiding the viewer to the scientific conclusion. I can see how it would be comforting to a wide range of folks, even if they have limited scientific literacy. Science should not be a dogma.

[@NFawc]

Consider your parents for a moment. The 'hockey stick model' tells them that the avg temp every years since the 80s has basically been hotter than the last. And during that period, they've also seen and read countless predictions of floods, starvation and ice caps disappearing, that then have failed to come to be. Is it surprising then if their lived memory which contradicts the narrative suggests to them not to trust the increasing extremism we face on this matter? Add to this the proven issue that work of a more doomsday nature gets more attention and funding than work which paints a less apocalyptic picture... Well... Personally, I think there is climate change akin to what is being suggested, but it's in no way as significant or dangerous as often relentlessly screamed at us in an almost religious fashion.

[@timothyrussell4445]

Science is the opposite of dogma because it always seeks to question. It is up to politicians to act based on the best advice they get, though unfortunately they are often more concerned with staying in power than doing the right thing, so who do you think they listen to? The scientists?

[@Jojo-u6c]

Exactly. And science literally became a religion. And science is literally supposed to be open to all possibilities and answers....no matter the outcome, but not it's not

[@carykh]

I just clicked on the notification, so I haven't watched through the whole thing yet, but thank you Neil for all your hard work! This is one of the most important messages the world needs to hear

[@Hlebuw3k]

hi cary

[@TabBuddie]

Yes

[@giraffeman326]

This day will go down in history

[@Cscuile]

Neil makes some insanely good videos

[@NeilHalloran]

Hi Cary! I just checked out your channel. Amazing. I'm familiar with your scale of universe work and am a fan. I'll be checking out your other vids too. I hope you like this one and all its headiness. Thank you!!

[@microphoneon9776]

This channel is definitely underrated...

[@Xyirua]

Yea

[@ThatSB]

He posts 1 video every 3 years. Not really

[@murunbuchstanzangur]

@@ThatSB but the quality! the visualisations alone are amazing...

[@JustAGuyYaKnow42]

I was going to ask how you can judge that with a grand total of four videos submitted.

[@RecklessRusty]

@@JustAGuyYaKnow42 because they watched one (quite amazing video) and commented.

[@andrii31415]

Good points made, just don't forget that we should scrutinize not only results that are viewed as "pessimistic", but also optimistic ones. Otherwise we open ourselves to the very confirmation bias you've mentioned. People tend to readily scrutinize something they don't like, but accept something pleasing - exactly because they want to *believe*

[@JohnSmith-ul2ce]

@@og4372 also the graphs are out of context to me. You see a line going straight up and it is 1 degree change. At one point also the sea level is depicted as rising 20 meters at Florida. What would it take for the sea level to rise 20 meters?! How many people would die due to shutting down coal or fossil fuel plants and not having refrigeration, a/c, heat, transportation, etc. we should do things to remove dependence from fossil fuel, but the benefit has to match the penalty. The premise of the video I agree with, be skeptical and question/research everything. ‘The science’ is usually not settled 100% or even close on any of these topics.

[@fishtolizard3930]

Belief Is the Problem.

[@JohnSmith-ul2ce]

@@og4372 how do you get all of that from what I said? They have plenty to gain, grants, funding, notoriety, public policy change, power and control. That was not my point though. My point is the changes should be shown on a full scale and the economic impact and loss of human life/quality of life should be taken into account when developing a solution. I think the Earth is warming. I think Humans are partially to blame. I think we are using resources and are not coming up with replacements fast enough. All of the studies I have seen basically say that if we stop all fossil fuel usage completely today, the impact would be negligible on the climate and mass human suffering would ensue. Let’s hope a breakthrough happens soon.

[@Jadefox32]

@@og4372 most likely something in between if something like orbital construction becomes a thing the amount of people here and the demands for the industries and infrastructure that has fueled the massive population boom will diminish over time, the sad thing is these things need to happen at their own pace. Nihilists might say it would be good if we just cut ourselves off and the mass suffering that would ensue upon us is justified, without realizing that kind of sudden loss of life would create it's own ecological problems. The other problem though is getting the entire world on board, if we allow a world with subtle CCP influence to continue then there will be 0 cares about what happens, and getting people in less developed parts of the world at least economically to make these changes is the hard part especially when you consider cultural values again globalists and Nihilists are generally fine with the removal of our culture not realizing that ignoring the past we condemn the future. Ultimately this won't be solved in our lifetime sadly but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come up with 0 attempts to address real problems that come from both a naturally changing and human influenced climate (well life influenced)

[@protoretro1290]

That is very true. To only seek to challenge what appears to be challengeable, is to not challenge what is, and to rest in comfort and impunity of what one sees as unchallenged is to be ignorant of truth. Translation: To only dispute with what you disagree, is to dispute what can be disputed, and to believe that something is indisputable, is to be ignorant of what should. Layman's Translation: Challenge everything that can be challenged, to not challenge everything is to ignore truth. To see truth as certain, is to ignore what truth is.

[@jayclue8581]

What's the alternative to learning by observations? Making stuff up? Science isn't perfect, but it's the best way we have to understand the world around us. Science welcomes skepticism. They are inherently tied to one another.

[@dinandk6204]

The quality of these videos is insane, this channel deserves 10 million subs

[@unrealisticfiction4182]

you are shooting low my friend

[@MrDSimba]

I honestly think that this video should be shown to every person on the planet. Healthy scepticism is absolutely vital for humanity to prosper. As someone who is naturally sceptical, I often find myself questioning certain hypotheses. The problem nowadays is that sceptical individuals are often touted as “conspiracy theorists” for simply stating an alternative hypothesis. Obviously there are some people who take this to the extreme and the problem with these people is that they blur the lines between healthy scepticism and illogical scepticism on the basis of personal beliefs and biases. Objectivity is very rare nowadays and I think far too many people learn something once and then won’t change their beliefs even when more reliable research is presented to them.

[@NeilHalloran]

Thanks Dinand! One can dream....

[@omilavidanage6608]

@@MrDSimba Totally agree! Everyone should see this!

[@bradarmpit3742]

if it was possible to upload videos of this quality daily then he would definitely have well over 10 million subs

[@matthewledford7209]

One of the biggest issues we have in society is the inability to question the science without being shut down or dismissed as a science denier. If no one questions the science, the flaws will be taught as the truth, and that will lead to very bad situations occurring. Dissent of mainstream opinion shouldn't be a crime.

[@quinnalmeida4043]

Science is the process of figuring out the truth. Any scientific argument should be considered as a placeholder theory. Using the scientific method to continually improve or replace these theories is what humans do, and should do, to get as close as possible to the truth. Any attempt to disprove something should be taken with absolute seriousness. The people accusing others of being science deniers for no reason other that personal bias don't represent the scientific community in the slightest. However, I will say that there is a difference in attempting to disprove a prevailing theory and just not wanting to believe it because you don't like it.

[@matthewledford7209]

@@quinnalmeida4043 I agree

[@curtisk2286]

That's right

[@Timbo_tango]

Are you going to include not getting vacinations?

[@deshaungreene6597]

As we thought back in the 80’s that all fats in foods were bad due to the rise in obesity. 40 years later we know it is the rise of sugar intake . But it takes trial and error in science. Good point there. Spot on.

[@methanesulfonic]

I feel guilty watching this documentary for free, they used to charge me something with this kind of quality back then.

[@xenvox724]

@@sykocode8530 He’s just in awe at the quality of the content, which even paid documentaries can’t match.

[@EVIL9000]

@@sykocode8530 easy there tiger, he is merely complementing the work.

[@pauleohl]

@@EVIL9000 You have inadvertently created an exquisite play on compliment/complement.

[@EVIL9000]

@@pauleohl English not being my main language 😅

[@RegionalRadioShackManager]

Then pay him?

[@OmzLaw]

Just wow. The music, the transitions, the animations... the way you logically built your point. Kudos to you and this video🎉

[@adolfdripler3413]

This dude took "quality over quantity" to the next level 1 high-quality and well edited video every few years

[@navb0tactual]

Thank you "Adolf Dripler" very cool

[@Kektamusprime]

hahha that name

[@clubtepes2046]

Very impressive. I think not only of how much time it took to research and write, but also how long it took to animate.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Climates change is just a super dangerous religious cult - nothing more. No one can debunk the video below - no at all one.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6nQhYmkmcqboKM This video is only meant for rational people. If climates change cultists want to see their devil feel free to watch.

[@glidercoach]

I agree, but he made some critical mistakes. I agreed with pretty much everything in the video until... 15:55 This graph does not match historical news reports. For example: The heat of 1877, 1911, 1921 and 1936. The graph indicates a normal or cool climate during these years. 1877 was the year without winter. It was an unexplained phenomenon that baffled the world. Some did blame sun spots. The summer of 1911 saw 100 people a day dying in New York and 40k people died in Paris from heat. In 1921, millions of people died across Europe and Asia from heat and famine caused by drought. It was also bad all over the world. In 1936 was the dust bowl era in the US where *millions* of real climate refugees fled the Midwest to California to escape the heat. Well documented in the book "The Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck. The point in the graph in 1936, is *colder,* than the years the world was freaking out over the coming ice age in the 1970's! This graph does not match historical news reports. NCAR's graph matches the historical news reports. We haven't seen brutal heat waves since the 1930's yet the graph shows a much hotter climate today. He touched on people not believing some science. There's good reason people are sceptical about the many things being told to us. He said "Trust the experts". Like for covid?

[@sbecker6133]

@@glidercoach facts!

[@legendarybroliz4578]

One should never feel guilty for questioning and scrutinizing anything, even the status quo, this is how science is done. The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths - Carl Sagan.

[@sirgeorgethegoat1748]

Well said! Toddlers are smarter than is all they question everything

[@bowez9]

Unless you're posting against the status quo, then you're labeled a heretic.

[@Zenkka]

The problem isn’t questioning and scrutinizing the science but the flat out denial of science by swarms of people who can barely understand the basics…. Because they don’t like what they are hearing

[@legendarybroliz4578]

@@Zenkka that is true, you make a fair point, it's sad that some people will never accept the evidence even if it is spelled out clearly for them.

[@CrusaderSports250]

@Nihal a non believer, always had a problem when they claim the science is settled, maybe it is but maybe it isn't, throughout history there have been claims about the science being settled only to be proved wrong, discovery and invention have been driven by challenging the held view, the whole idea of collecting wild animals and looking after them was just madness, and the hunters Union is up in arms as it will take jobs, animals are wild and we hunt them that is how society works end of argument, science should never be viewed as settled, even when it appears to be right.

[@BedroomPianist]

This channel is KZbin's strongest argument for quality over quantity, well done

[@orang9134]

Lemmino I would put at 2nd

[@QT5656]

There are several candidates, e.g. bobby broccoli, barely sociable, Shaun, potholer54, unknown5s, Zephyrus

[@PhlyDaily]

amazing sound design in this and editing. subbed for sure! Love the idea of being a skeptic. More of us need to question everything or we become complacent.

[@8UTT0NMASH3RS]

Oh hi Phly you were watching too huh? I'm about to share this video to people everywhere.

[@mexicanbanjo9325]

Questioning everything is important or else civilization wouldn’t be able to move forward if we just sat back and let fate takes its course.

[@MaxLohMusic]

A rant to no one in particular: Some people have lost touch with what it means to be a skeptic. They just think it means distrust everything one side says and believe everything their side says. Distrust the experts and media if so inclined, but don't put blind faith in your preferred websites/channels while pretending it isn't another form of "media". Ignore all that; look mainly at the studies and metastudies themselves. If there's anything with more credibility than media, experts and scientists, it's science itself. The most flagrant violators of this concept are the people who call everyone "sheep", who ironically are the biggest "sheep" themselves. However, don't think you're immune from bias just because you're not one of those people. When "mainstream media" touted that masks are useless against diseases in 2020, most liberals were completely on board with it and none of my friends believed me when I said it was contradictory to scientific studies that went all the way back to 2012.

[@markhutton6055]

@@MaxLohMusic show me a study that proves masks work. There are none. Most say that there is no proof they do, though accept that more work needs to be done. Some say that, particularly cloth mask, can increase the spread of infection. Most studies also involved health workers, very few pre-pandemic studies involved the general public. Health workers are trained in the use of masks, change them regularly and have in house laundry services (that was the subject of a study in itself - a study which showed that when health care workers washed cloth masks themselves at home, the masks increased the rate of infection rather than reducing it). A court case in Ontario, between healthcare workers and the hospital, determined from the BOK that there was no evidence that masks reduced the spread of infection. And though the CDC, the NHS and PHE are s always mentioning (but not referencing) studies which prove that masks do not cause hypoxia, the pre-pandemic study by Bader seemed to have proved the opposite. Still the largest study done todate, the Danish study, failed to conclude that masks prevented the spread of infection, stating that there was no evidence that masks work. This coupled with observational data from masked and maskless states (or even counties - such as in Arizona), there us nothing that can be shown to prove that masks work. The only way to prove a negative (normally) is to continue to fail to prove the positive.

[@thejediknight203]

Hey Phly 👋 Long range yeets are a cure for everything 😂🤣😂

[@Evan2]

It is incredibly refreshing to see such an unbiased, pragmatic, fact-driven take on climate change. Amazing work.

[@peterjones4180]

Haaaaaaaaaaaa, boy you REALLY do not know much of the science do you.

[@R1cardoo]

@@peterjones4180 I bet you don't either

[@peterjones4180]

@@R1cardoo You would be WRONG, i know quite a bit about both the scientific results AND the politics of this issue, i have been looking into this for around 44 years. This issue is around 90% politics and 10% science. Remember i lived through the first human induced climate catastrophe promoted by the same groups, (The Club of Rome, the U.N green NGO's etc, and some of the same scientists, James Hanson for example), they proved over time to have been WRONG about every prediction of climate doom they made. Remember they wanted world governments to BUILD AS MANY COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS AS POSSIBLE TO PUMP AS MUCH Co2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AS WE COULD TO SAVE THE PLANET, thats RIGHT, thats what they demanded, they demanded we sprinkle the poles with CARBON BLACK TO MELT THE ICE, TO SAVE THE PLANET. These are the same groups that promote panic over Co2 levels and warming, and melting ice now. They have taken perfectly normal short term cycles of warming and cooling and turned them into a mechanism to provide stupendous profits for themselves, and to advance their geopolitical agenda.

[@R1cardoo]

@@peterjones4180 the ones that have more to profit about is the big oil companies and the northern countries, this issue is political because of those big oil companies giving money to politicians to push their agenda.

[@peterjones4180]

@@R1cardoo Ok, boy you do NOT have much of a handle on the realities , it was the owners of STANDARD OIL, that started and funded the environmental panic , that is the Rockefeller family, through one of the organizations they set up ,and fund for that purpose, via the Rockefeller Foundation, The Club of Rome, it was The Club of Rome which set up the U.N environmental department and the IPCC, The Club of Rome is the IPCC's primary environmental advisors, they exist (like the CFR and the Trilaterals) to implement the geopolitical agenda of the Rockefellers and other members of the group. Fossil Fuel companies have ALWAYS been one of the LARGEST funders of the global warming panic movement, the commonly repeated lie is that oil companies give VAST amounts of money to global warming realist groups, that is simply NOT TRUE, a small amount of funding does go to those groups but the vast river of corporate and government funding goes to green groups. The world will still buy all the oil it can and the pretty useless solar and wind sector provides the opportunity for even greater profits via investment by subsidiary companies, these profits are ONLY available from the vast subsidies provided by YOU in your taxes, in contrast to the much smaller subsidies provided as tax breaks for fossil fuel. I suggest you invest the money in a copy of Cloak of Green by Elaine Dewar..........she is a greenie and an AGW true believer but an honest journalist, her association with environmental causes provided her with an inside look at what REALLY was going on inside WWF and other green NGO's, what she saw shocked her, and prompted her to start researching that sector, her professional relationships gave her entry to the closed door meetings at the 1992 Rio Earth Conference which was organized by Maurice Strong an oil executive, white collar criminal, and like Henry Kissinger a lifetime servant of the house of Rockefeller (it was the Rockefellers who made their careers for them through the CFR), the Rio conference was conducted to get the governments of the world to sign up to Agenda 21, which is a mechanism to implement the Rockefeller geopolitical agenda using aspects of environmentalism as a lever to compel electoral support in western countries. You cannot understand the politics behind the global warming issue without a working understanding of the activities of the worlds most powerful capitalists over the last 120 years. The ACTUAL history of that period is VERY different to what we have all been led to believe. There is at least one U Tube interview with Elaine Dewar on U Tube.

[@designed4freedom]

Honestly, setting aside the climate issue itself - this is one of the best produced and clear takes on a fundamental problem of the information age: Trust & Authority. It feels as if everyone is under constant pressure to join either of two extremes: total deference to authority, or total distrust of authority. This topic could be explored entirely on it's own, though it was very fitting in this context. Thank for producing this.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money... This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6nQhYmkmcqboKM&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@jaspervandenbosch3838]

@@TheConstitutionFirst You're so close, except it's actually fossil fuel corporations that invest huge sums of money in efforts to discredit climate change.

[@2partiesnotpreferred226]

@@TheConstitutionFirst yeah what jasper said. You guys have the most to lose you flops.

[@Greg-yu4ij]

Exactly. I want to believe what they say about climate change, but when we get these authoritative predictions that we’re going to be underwater in 10 years it is extremely unhelpful and winds up pushing us into opposing camps (which may actually be an unstated goal to drive fundraising). We could start with sea level rises at 3 mm per year, or 3 feet every 100 years and point out that we will soon have the technology to reverse that if we so choose.

[@Lemonpopz]

I am a science supporting realist, and I believe everyone is focused on the wrong question. This climate change information has always been approached from a viewpoint seeking to answer a linear series of questions that are self explanatory. Is the earth warming? Yes. Are humans contributing? Yes. Will these changes change humans way of life? Yes. Will these changes be negative? For many, yes. All these seem to conclude that human contributions to global warming must be bad. However I have another question chain that I feel is more relevant, that I cannot seem to find any videos on. As humanities increase in CO2 output grew, have peoples quality of life and longevity increased? Yes. Is this related? Yes. Is the quality of life increase the result of increased manufacturing capabilities/technological advancement that generate CO2? Yes. So, the big question, does continuing on our current path lead to more of this positive outcome for humanity at a greater rate than the negative outcomes of global warming? Thats the tough one. Because for every icecap that melts, a new farmland opens in the arctic. For every city that floods, a million square miles of jungle loses its malaria carrying mosquitos. For every polar bear that dies, we get one step closer to colonizing the solar system. What is the actual tradeoff ratio? Because in 30 years I expect immortality, super AGI, mars colonies, other habitations set up, cures for cancer, and all of this is a result of burning fossil fuels to run computers and get scientists to/from work. Ultimately what we want isn't permanently stable coastlines, or unchanging terrain; to wish for total terrestrial control of the earths surface is a pretty big ask in 2024. What we want is to be able to sustain our way of life on this planet without major disruption. Think of all the villages off our coasts under our oceans, even today; we've already been through flooded cities and we don't even think about it. I argue that our climate, even thrown into its worst state, is more habitable than Mars. And if we wish to one day inhabit Mars, we should probably be able to first build colonies on this planet, earth, capable of withstanding the mild-in-comparison weather that we will face in our solar system. I am not arguing for parting out the planet piecemeal and turning it into a barren wasteland, as I don't believe continued contribution to climate change is an open ended concern (as shown in the video, there is a limited amount of coal/oil/gas available to burn, a limited number of trees to deforest, etc) and cannot possibly go on forever warming the planet. We as a species have lived through much worse changes than this, and this time we are more prepared than ever, and will only grow even more prepared as we continue to advance our species through the utilization of resources to generate energy.

[@tsun4mi993]

This guy’s editing is on whole different level

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@Frickolas]

God I wish the dislike button still worked.

[@Khang-kw6od]

@@Frickolas ?

[@Frickolas]

@@Khang-kw6od there was some dude saying it was just stock graphics. looks like he deleted his comment.

[@Khang-kw6od]

@@Frickolas oh lol

[@kevincui5282]

It angers me that stupid videos on KZbin blow up but masterpieces like these don’t get attention!!! It’s probably one of the most outstanding, insightful, rational, informing and unbiased documentaries I’ve seen! Please, KZbin algorithm, do your magic!!!

[@laurensjvg]

Last few minutes are not unbiased

[@andymacdonald821]

Kevin, the end credits clearly show that their are dozens of globalist benefactors paying off this pseudoscience yet only two "research analysts". This video is just a slick heavily biased advert for the CarbonTaxFraud SCAM. I smell a u.n./ipcc shill.....

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

@@andymacdonald821 Rubbish; you just fed this video into your hardened rut of logic and threw in the irrelevant word "pseudscience". There's nothing "science" about this video, it's about "thinking". And you failed. As for your nose? Now that's a scientific instrument I'm sure we can rely on...

[@benm3382]

That always annoys me too, but I guess the thing to remember is that an amazing video takes time and effort to appreciate while a dumb video can be consumed passively by anyone... So the best videos are always going to have less views. But they got high-quality engagement, which can be very good for sponsorships and ad revenue.

[@noctyd9322]

This video has almost 400k views and 5.6k comments including veritasium and it's only been around about a month.

[@arlopaden9794]

This is one of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time and so many more people need to see it

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@samsepiol741-f9q]

tldr?

[@leydensjar]

"People who aren't called scientists kinda havta be scientists." 7:07 A hundred times yes! I say this a lot as a science communicator/teacher, that we are teaching science thinking and science skills to students in order to later have citizens who think like scientists.

[@luddity]

Knowledge is power, and too much power in too few hands is never a good thing. Therefore, scientific knowledge should be as widely distributed as possible, in order to protect and preserve the quality of scientific knowledge and its progress thru time.

[@MaxLohMusic]

I hope your vision of education becomes more widespread, because otherwise our world is doomed. Some tech leaders think they can just censor wrong information to reduce the harm, but the internet is proof of how easily that backfires and just fuels more conspiracy theories, not to mention they'll inevitably censor something that's true once in a while. The censoring is like a bandaid covering up the symptoms. Educating more young people to understand how/why science works, how real-life empirical evidence is way more reliable than an expert's prediction, and how to be wary of common statistical fallacies; that's the cure.

[@danpress7745]

And, thinking like a scientist means citing sources. I noticed within a few minutes that the author did not cite sources. Just made vague claims to certain sources. HMMMMM, gotta wonder.

[@danpress7745]

@@leydensjar Silly or not, not giving sources is reflective of the author's bias. I'm not a true scientist, I'm an engineer, so science facts are important to me. So, again, I've gotta wonder what the author's motives are.

[@danpress7745]

@@leydensjar What fake account?

[@TheAmbasador99]

This goes way beyond climate science and you bring up very important issues with research as a whole, it's awesome

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@TheAmbasador99]

@@TheConstitutionFirst I am afraid that you are part of the issue as everybody else, me even replying to you also underlines my role into the complex nature of this problem. It's very easy, we do have an effect on the delicate natural balance this planet has, anthropogenic causes for climate change are very well recorded, I just don't like and I don't believe in climate doomerism. I have an interest in Astronomy, and I can tell you that cyclic burst of sunspots do affect the climate of our planet, rather minimally, temperatures have been on an upward trend since the industrial revolution. However, I am less interested in geology, but happen to know that CO2 emissions from Volcanoes emit about the same emissions as humans... For just a few hours/days. We've been making emissions for 271 years and disturbing the natural process of climate change and we aren't stopping any time soon, better yet, rates of emission are increasing. It's easy to get confused and thinking you are onto something, is easy to see scientists change their minds according to the data they gathered and think that they are simply not being cosistent. Science isn't consistent, if it were, we would have no need to figure out how the world works. And then there are the journalists who have to add onto this confusion: global warming and climate change as terms had always existed in tandem it's just that the frequency of use changed on the basis of sensationalism, and global cooling feel into disfavor as evidence hinted that it wasn't the case.

[@TheAmbasador99]

@@TheConstitutionFirst there is no (let alone) climate researcher who got rich from doing their job, indeed, as a researcher you are lucky if you are better off than a cubicule slave in terms of earnings

[@elizabethwinsor-strumpetqueen]

@@TheConstitutionFirst thanks for the alternative view point! 😊

[@ex8280]

@@elizabethwinsor-strumpetqueen in their useless occupation, having a paycheck is probably reason enough to question their studies.

[@Sahtoovi]

When we needed him the most, he came back

[@alexloftus8892]

The Last Videobender

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@hand_and_justin_entertainment]

200 years from now, whether our understanding of Climate Change is legitimate or not. Our future brethren will either agree, establish new areas, or snark at the ideas we have today.

[@surfingbilly9654]

the same way we look at the things people believed 200 years ago is the same way people 200 years in the future are going to look at us.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Ummm, if our ancestors are able to write and read anyway. The true problem with Climate Change isn't the millions or billions of death that will likely occur due to ecosystems collapsing and food production plummeting because of it. It is the political instability it will cause and the 15.000 nuclear warheads still in existence. Chances are, they will be fired once the chaos and despair on Earth will be great enough. If humanity survives that (questionable) it is very likely the survivors will be thrown back to the stone age because educational systems will be non-existent and the struggel for survival will take up all energy.

[@the_hanged_clown]

as my tech school instructors would tell me, "if you weren't sure why didn't you ask for help" upon flopping on a test. problem is, I was sure. but I was also wrong.

[@johnnewton3592]

One thing I do not think he fully addresses is how the funding and money affects publications. If you are taking money from a big pharma, chances are your results to be published are not going to denounce a product they are selling as it will not get published. The same is for the oil companies and lobbyists that put pressures on science research and policy makers to ignore sound scientific research.

[@klokoloko2114]

like fossil fuel money lobbyist

[@LabGecko]

@@BishopRealTalk98 So intergovernmental = scientific communities in different nations, yes? Please explain to me how to coordinate and pay said scientists, accountants, clerks, and other governmental agents to stay quiet uniformly over decades. I'd like to use that method to start a mad scientist cabal.

[@nnzzp8330]

@@LabGecko They don't stay quiet; they're blackballed and dismissed by the scientific establishment. Think the green energy lobby isn't putting money into funding these studies? How about the (overwhelmingly left-wing) universities deciding which studies get funding (with the end result already in mind)? Scientists know which side of their bread is buttered on and those who think the only deceitful influence is coming from the oil companies is naive.

[@LabGecko]

@@nnzzp8330 I'll ask again, how do you keep terms of thousands of people from speaking out against such treatment like you claim to be doing right now? How do you keep them from sharing proof this is happening?

[@LabGecko]

@@BishopRealTalk98 Listen, I understand your point of view. I used to think the same thing regarding climate change. But it just isn't true. There are scientists that have been bought off, yes. But they are FAR from the majority. I don't know where you are getting your information, but the guy that made this video did some good research. He actually went and talked to a bunch of the scientists and reviewed research on the others that he didn't talk to. I changed my mind when I was presented with those facts too. I recommend you search farther. It isn't easy, I grant you, but it is worth it to know you are telling people the truth.

[@Matthew_Klepadlo]

You can say whatever you want this video and it’s subject, it looks absolutely gorgeous, one of the most beautiful KZbin videos I’ve ever seen, and this is what so many channels should be putting out.

[@Timbo_tango]

Just remeber beauty can be deceptive also. Facts are often not beautiful but hard to find.

[@ewallt]

@@Timbo_tango It’s a bit ironic that a number of the “truths” or “errors” listed in the video are dependent upon “experts.”

[@Timbo_tango]

@@ewallt Yep, very.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@soscilogical1904]

800, 000 years ago, was the last time the planet had todays CO2 levels.

[@mitchellcouchman1444]

CO2 levels were far higher during the time of the dinosaurs, high CO2 levels are required to support large flora and therefore fauna

[@Bluepilled-c5t]

Even if true, so what?

[@kothejunglist]

it's important to find out who funded a study when considering its information.

[@johnryan1287]

Exactly. Who funds the study determines the conclusions. Nothing from the climate alarmists should be believed

[@prussianowl233]

@@johnryan1287 Who's funding the studies that point to global warming then?

[@johnryan1287]

@@prussianowl233 The UN, Bill Gates. Al Gore. A wide array of progressive think tanks and super pacs. Duh

[@phr3ui559]

PrussianOwl23 cope

[@prussianowl233]

@@phr3ui559 ?

[@efhi]

I felt a little pessimistic when I first laid my eyes on this video because of what I assumed it contents would proceed into arguing against human caused climate change but this video is a work of art, it encapsulates the essence of science and informs the viewer unbiasedly with such a wonderful use of animation and narration. Reminds me of Derek Miller's ideology that videos are the best way to educate the general public about science.

[@0x2404]

Maybe now in the future you will judge less on headlines. Even if it argued against human caused climate change, you shouldn't automatically dismiss it without knowing the contents.

[@aperson2703]

Literal definition of confirmation bias.

[@smiffythecat3751]

A lot of us are old enough to see the "trends" of what we are told is science. It seems about every 20 years (sometimes 40, sometimes less than 10) the trends change. 20 years is a de(s)cent average to look for an oligarchical truth change {note: not an actual truth change}. And yeah, he did a fairly good job!

[@efhi]

@@0x2404 Yes, I always try to. That's why I watched it regardless

[@efhi]

@@aperson2703 I mean I watched the video regardless of my preconceptions and I read quite a bit of the arguments of people who support that notion. Regardless I don't doubt that humans had a big impact on it and the average populace would take those kind of ideas as an excuse to dismiss anything else.

[@TheFrankvHoof]

"For some, trusting or distrusting scientists has become a matter of political identity" Marking the end of enlightenment.

[@peterbelanger4094]

Only for some. I distrust scientists, as I distrust any human capable of flaw and corruption. Just because someone is a "scientist" does not make them morally "better" or more honest. They are just a person with a job in science, and prone to all the flaws of human behavior. Not to mention professional scientists are trained in one highly focused area of science, and on any matters outside of that they are just as useful as any other person off the street. There is also just too much conflict of interest in the scientific community, people can be easily swayed by money, and if that does not work, there are a multitude of ways to manipulate and coerce a scientist into supporting a particular hypothesis. Bias is rampant everywhere these days, and the science community is not immune to it, not one bit. Yes, there is an end to enlightenment, it is an end to enlightenment within science, science has become corrupted and no longer seeks truth. It seeks profit, and subsidies and grants. Academic science is just as petty and "clickey" as any junior high school. Our civilization is now lost. Frequently people place too much trust in authority figures, having never really had that childhood illusion of the authority figure's competence shattered. Distrust in authority usually comes from experience in life, having been let down and exposed to the flaws of those who are supposed to be "in charge", and "expert".

[@anarchisttechsupport6644]

May I interject with my own political context? Im not going to pretend this is *the* truth, but a viewpoint which i share with many others. Not gonna lie, it starts doomerist af. I see US presidents, as far back as I can remember, either paying lip service or outright denying the problem. And for all his speeches, Biden keeps approving more oil pipelines, and conceding any forward motion that his agenda promised. I see climate scientists so dismayed by the lack of political action that they retire from the world to go live off-the-grid. I see 71% of global carbon emissions produced by 100 companies and the US military. Meanwhile, its somehow each individual's responsibility. And the political ideology of "personal responsibility" is the same camp denying that a problem exists. I saw leaders of small island nations approach Obama, Trump, and Biden at the beginning of these men's terms to *BEG FOR MERCY* as their lands disappear beneath the waves. All to ultimately no avail. I see nobody coming to save us. We're on our own. The megacorporations and their politicians will sink humanity as we know it. We have nobody to save us but ourselves and the friends we make along the way. With luck? We have around 20 years. Get building. Even if all you do is talk to a neighbor, and together throw seed bombs for fruiting trees on abandoned city land? Its a quick start to build from. The fact is? Strong communities are safer than any bunker. Too many of us are starting from scratch in building communities; yet the work of building and prepping *together* out in the open provides an easy cornerstone to build upon.

[@thegodfather_8455]

The issue is that science has become a religion, were free thinking scientist who question the main stream beliefs are chastised and suppressed by the majority mainstream scientist

[@InciniumVGC]

There's multiple factors going into this: 1. Scientists who have been, for whatever reason, corrupted into giving a result desired by a bad faith actor with an agenda (corporations and activists both come to mind here) repeatedly have damaged the credibility of the institution. 2. Science has been used to justify views and actions that are unjust by today's moral standards, things like social Darwinism, phrenology, eugenics, etc. and while this is not the fault of the scientists themselves usually, in fact it's often through a misinterpretation of the science, it still has left a bad taste in people's mouths. 3. The political climate of the West, America in particular, has become polarized and science is a victim of this. Questioning science has gone from a requirement to forbidden under threat of "cancellation", in many cases involving being labeled with terms such as bigot and racist, having researched censored or shut down entirely, and being blackballed from careers. 4. Science is no longer accessible to average people. Our body of knowledge has advanced to a degree that a layman can no longer even understand the science properly without a significant level of background education and intellectual capacity. Being scientifically literate is too difficult for many people. Certain types of science are also prohibitively inaccessible, since it's not like regular people can just operate their own hadron collider in their backyard. As such it has effectively become just "trust us, we're scientists we know better than you" and this standard is really no better than religion saying "trust us, it's written in this book" The strength of the Enlightenment and the scientific method that it produced is the idea that reality is objective and can be verified by observation. While there are indeed multiple ways a person can come to "know" something, only the scientific method can produce knowledge that can actually be transferred from person to person through space and time without having to blindly trust that what the person is telling you is true. However without average people being able to verify for themselves through observation and experimentation, it's gone back to blindly trusting people. Thus we've moved from rationalism and modernity to postmodernism, which is in many ways regressive and destructive. It's no longer about objective truth and facts not caring about your feelings, but subjective truth and feelings not caring about your facts.

[@retrictumrectus1010]

@@anarchisttechsupport6644 Personal responsibility is a GREAT tool in combating the climate problem though. People who hold it takes responsibility for their actions, including their contribution to our ecological health. The problem is that people who believe it do not believe there is a problem in our climate mainly because those who say there is a climate problem cannot be trusted because of their horrendous track record. I mean, the climate preachers use cars and jets all the time.

[@gilodis23]

I know this will get lost in the swarm of comments, but I love your work and the way you display it. Thanks for another beautiful documentary

[@paulw8356]

Absolutely brilliant! As a follower and occasional editor at Skeptical Science, this is truly a great tool.

[@peterjones4180]

Of course some one who works at Skeptical Science would LOVE this highly deceitful bit of propaganda. After all John Cook cant seem to tell the difference between 97% and 0.3% in HIS OWN PUBLISHED AND HIGHLY FLAWED STUDY.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@TheCarpenterUnion]

Alternate title: Journalist Realizes He Has to Question Things Before Reporting Them

[@normanstewart7130]

You're right, and the tragedy is that most journalists aren't even aware that they need to question science.

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

Best comment. For today's "journalists", just stepping out of their cultural echo-chamber is the most liberating experience of their short lives.

[@mendyboio3917]

20 thousand years ago is not long enough. The Scientists have core Ice samples that go back 800,000 years. One study is never enough. I recommend at least 10. Also, it's important to see who is paying for the peer-reviewed research. And, the statistical analysis test must be t=or greater than .01. I hope this helps you and everyone with their mission for truth-seeking.

[@TheFilipalberius]

Journalist: "Journalists need to take responsibility for what they report" No-one really: :O

[@joeschmoe4205]

What does it mean to take responsibility? I've never known what that word signifies. It's an honest question.

[@johnmcclain3887]

When a real "scientist" publishes his or her work, they must make full attributions, delineate the articles they researched, and put all their findings in factual, accurate data, annotated. It's ridiculous to make this claim, while the actual increase "since we've been measuring it", remember, two hundred years ago, we'd not identified most of the elements. It's a simple fact, going from 200 parts per billion, to almost three hundred, is a 45% increase, but has no meaning without context. At sixty three, I've seen statements of five, six, or twelve inches of "ocean rise" while knowing it hasn't risen enough to see, living on the ocean, in wetlands, and having spent two decades around the world as a Marine. I hate journalists who simply fail to provide any factual evidence, using innuendo, to garner attention, and scare the public. I can't believe how many have watched this and think its science. Semper Fidelis,

[@randomuser5443]

They think they guild thought instead of i forming

[@OneTrippin]

Few journalists report news. They write stories now days. I.e. narritive structures. Peer reviewed studies can be just as influanced as the people that produce them. The story tellers often just pick and choose what facts or data they need to best fit their narritive structure.

[@AbyssalManta]

I'm more than happy to accept that anthropogenic warming of unprecedented magnitude is - in all likelihood - occurring. The problem is that establishing the problem is but the first step in the process. 1 - The efficacy, side-effects and costs of any proposed "treatment" need to be discussed and ascertained. A viable treatment cannot be worse than the disease it seeks to cure. Pretending that treatments have no costs or side effects and that anyone who questions them is evil just destroys people's goodwill. 2 - The 6000 years empirical track record of governments needs to be taken into consideration, and we must earnestly ask the question of whether it's rational to expect these entities to handle a problem of this complexity, without causing problems ten times worse in the process. 3 - Any future projection is inherently speculative. An alien observing a human child growing from 0 to 10 years might conclude the life-form will be 10 stories tall when it's 40 years old. A few decades ago, everyone was worried about the populational "Explosion"; today people accept it'll cap some time in the next several decades and then start plummeting. 3.1 - Estimating what technology will be like DECADES from now is a fool's errand. For all you know, Fossil Fuels might be rendered obsolete by Cold Fusion in 2050. Maybe artificial trees made of Nanobots will be scrubbing the carbon from the air and then reassembling into other machines once they are no longer needed. 3.2 - Would we be better off today if our ancestors in 1900 had predicted this problem and decided to tackle it with 1900's tech, severely slowing the Industrial Revolution? This documentary is a step in the right direction. We do need to replace bullying and authoritarianism with evidence-based conversation. Here's hoping this attitude will hold in the next stages of this very important discussion.

[@SynapticTransmission]

Excellent post! Thank you.

[@roberthicks5454]

The first thing you have to do is figure out how to move Antarctica and the Himalayan mountains. They caused the ice age and until that is taken care of, history has proven that co2 can not possibly end the ice age.

[@HearMeRawls]

Maybe maybe... As you point out yourself, we don't know what our future technological capabilities will be. We do know that our current path of warming will have catastrophic consequences, and hoping that future generations will just find some device that will solve everything easily is just wishful thinking.

[@roberthicks5454]

@@HearMeRawls How? What proof is there that co2 is the cause of warming and not the result? What proof is there that the temperature is higher than it was 2000 years ago? Proxy say it is not. IF you go by proxies, we took a down turn in 1950, then up for a while, THEN a drop in 2000 or so. They refuse to show the downturn because it destroys their claim that proxies and instruments are exactly the same. The skeptical viewpoint is the scientist making the claim are using false data.

[@HearMeRawls]

@@roberthicks5454 So because you don't like the scientific results, the scientists must be using false data. Flawless logic, really.

[@patriot9455]

I have noticed that the more certain someone is about a "soft" fact, like the future, the more likely they are to have blindered their view to comfort their own assumptions. Being aware of uncertainty lets us look at experts with more of a detached perspective. That very uncertainty helps us find more reasonable answers. Maybe not "The Correct" answer of this day, but one we were unable to see from our own certainty. Just remember every solution changes the ratio of "good" answers to "bad" answers, which moves some solutions from one side to the other.

[@jbdelphiaiii7637]

My guess is that AI expert systems might be able to remove some of our human biases. Climate prediction, modelling and control is a driving force for supercomputers. Then another problem might emerge - as in who decides exactly what the climate should be once we can eventually control it.

[@soscilogical1904]

Yeah, people believe scientists at the hospital for babies and anaesthetics, chemistry is fine. When they want electricity in a microchip, scientists aare your freind. When they want to put saudi oil in the tank, Scientists and chemists are fake and wrong! When they need Smartphone Antenna, SCIENTIST FRIEND! need pollute sky? Scientist ENEMY! Please be reasonable. please don't be a troll with fake allegiance to chemistry when it suits you to pollute your kid's sky, especially if you don't really know what the sun is made of or how they measure sun chemicals in the 1800s.

[@spencerstevens2175]

It's always very convenient for people's arguments when the consequences for what they are claiming will happen won't happen in their lifetime

[@spencerstevens2175]

​@@jbdelphiaiii7637 it will take so long to achieve that we won't even be recognized as humans by that point

[@muntee33]

Understanding that we must question everything, especially that which exercises the power to hold authority over others, is critical to remaining free and independent to make decisions which authentically serve the interests of the individual/community/population. As that old guy once said, "All that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing." *Evil = falsehoods, Doing nothing = failing to hold 'experts' to account and critically question the accepted truth, not out of cynicism or disrespect but our of an objective desire to achieve the highest degree of accuracy possible.

[@BanesPlanes]

This video is better done then many full documentaries and movies. This is amazing!

[@portfolio91]

Oh yeah! One of my hobbies is science, and they do a great job explaining uncertainty and the public perceptions. AND a great job illustrating climate change, how much is known, where the uncertainty comes from, etc. I love it!

[@digitalobserved]

For some rare videos you just know from the start you're going to watch it a second time.

[@NeilHalloran]

Thanks Lewis - that means a lot!

[@TheDoomWizard]

I think you might like my channel.

[@SilentEdits]

Finally someone that is able to make a convincing argument. I’m so tired of “trust the science”

[@NandR]

They need to show people the actual effects. By using a closed system with different gases and then placing a light that emits UV radiation in that system. As the UV light heats up the bottom surface, the surface will emit IR radiation. That is what is absorbed by Methane and Carbon Dioxide. Those gases are what cause our atmosphere to warm. Otherwise more of that IR radiation would radiate into space.

[@holokyttaja5476]

So what do you trust if not science? A KZbin video?

[@AlmightyJoats]

@@holokyttaja5476 It's not that they don't trust science, it's just that blindly trusting science isn't enough for some people. It shouldn't be enough for anyone. If this video is what it takes to convince them, that is fine. Videos are much easier to digest for some than reading academical papers or other similarly dense sources. Moreover, the fact that this is presented as a video doesn't detract from its value. Credible sources are cited, contrasting ideas are compared and logical points are made. It's not about opinions, not about brainwashing, it's about analysing what has happened, what is happening and based on that, what could happen. To your average person, seeing this video means much more than reading the hundreds or thousands of pages it took to create the articles that support it. Because it makes it easy for them to understand things quickly, things they may never had come to understand otherwise. I'm very thankful it exists, and I wish that content like this reaches more and more people.

[@rdizzy1]

@@AlmightyJoats The government should put funding into people like this to make public access videos on these topics. In reality, people need someone to gather up all of the best studies and mash them together in one video similar to this and explain in lay mans terms what these studies show and what they mean.

[@justincosby2258]

The statement trust the science makes my blood boil. People who say it don't have the first clue what science actually is. Most science is inconclusive at best. We are still very primitive in our understanding of most things. We have a long way to go as a species before we can start correctly using that term, and until that time we absolutely shouldn't.

[@Gengh13]

The problem with nutrition "science" is that it relies heavily on questionnaire based epidemiology and because interventional studies are much more expensive, and you can't exactly lock the subjects in a room, feed them what you want and kill them at the end to perform an autopsy or have them for the rest of their lives to measure longevity. And there are studies that show how unreliable people are at remembering what they ate, that's one of the main reasons why nutrition is so complicated.

[@viljosavolainen2286]

I think the most reliable results are acquired with mouse and rat studies. Althought there are some differenses still the results corresponds close enough for us humans. Broblems arise becouse best for individually would most likely cause broblems on a large scale namely broduction vice. So there are the economic aspect and environmental aspect and social aspect. When we try to analyse humans statistically all these things might affect the results one way or the other so we might get scewed data.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is not sure..* *Here is the logical way to understand Co2 and a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@ernomeister]

visually very pleasing - good work.

[@shubhanshusingh335]

4 years 4 videos 4 masterpieces

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@gnatdagnat]

Every dimension of this was near perfect. Vocal delivery, thoroughness of research, precision of language, animation, mood, pacing, and above all the right mindset and intention behind the composition of the message. Flawless.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money.. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@ModelLights]

'Every dimension of this was near perfect. Vocal delivery, thoroughness of research, precision of language, animation, mood, pacing, and above all the right mindset and intention behind the composition of the message. Flawless.' You realize this is hilarious, and you should be embarrassed to have said it, right? 'Fluff makes the science better!' No, it does not. 'right mindset and intention, mood, pacing' Ridiculous crap. Only one thing actually counts in science, and that is what is actually correct and accurate. That you even consider anything else as a factor is silly. There's a reason the people who push climate change take the money and have to cheat the data everywhere they can.

[@jioshfiouwhegfoiwe]

@@ModelLights Are you denying climate change?

[@lizicadumitru9683]

@@ModelLights OK, sidestep all the "glitz"...was the data correct or was it fudged?

[@ModelLights]

@@lizicadumitru9683 '...was the data correct or was it fudged?' Logic faults all over the place, doesn't even make it to 'the data'.

[@drewrobinson9120]

""Trust the experts" has lead to as much if not more harm than anything. If you do not question, then you are lead blindly without knowing if the "experts" are in fact experts. How do you know someone is and expert? By what institutions back them or publish their work? But then you have to trust that those institutions are in fact credible and not susceptible to bias. Institutions are no less fallible than people. The phrase "Trust, but Verify" should never be far from anyone's mind. No trust should come blindly or without question, as such trust is never repaid with mercy.

[@asasnapparel5359]

very underrated comment sir

[@GordoGambler]

Zuckerberg does NOT ALLOW alernate thinking. Only LEFTY totalitarian FASCISM for decades now. What a SAD end to civilization.

[@martiddy]

I mean, we don't have a choice, we always trust the experts in their respective areas for their knowledge and skills. When we go to the doctor for a surgery, we trust them instead of asking them for their experience and academic background. Because we trust that the institutions already did that job for us, same with scientists, engineers, etc.

[@drewrobinson9120]

@@martiddy I do not trust doctors or anyone else without researching their credentials and getting second opinions. Is it inconvenient? Yes, a little. But if you trust that someone is an expert without verifying, you could end up worse of than you were to begin with. How many times have people hired a construction company only to find out they were in fact not credible in their field after the work they hired them to do is finished and failed inspection or collapsed? How many doctors have been sued for malpractice for prescribing treatments or performing procedures that they were not qualified for? The answer for both questions is far higher than most people would care to hear, and in the thousands and hundreds a year respectively. Again "Trust, but verify".

[@arthurpendragon3000]

@@drewrobinson9120 Approximately 250,000+ people die from malpractice each year making it the third highest causes of death in the US.

[@dartht.3736]

Wow. Except the models have not been accurate for more than 60 years. And the real climatetologist say the data is grossly over stated. Your presentation seems honest. IPCC even says there is no urgent crisis. Temps are rising in the 1/2 degree range. It’s been warmer before and civilization flourished. I think it’s real, but has little risk. The real risk is governments taking more control of us.

[@QT5656]

Sorry but you've been conned. Even the projections of relatively simple models from the 1970s, such as those by Exx0n, match current observations. Events such as the Medieval Warm Period were regional and not quite as warm as previously assumed. You've probably seen a dishonest comparison of predictions for surface temps against satellite estimates of the mid troposphere by Spencer and Christy. Physics doesn't care about your politics.

[@1997oreosFTW]

Just commenting in a feeble attempt to have the algorithm share this with more people

[@wanderinghistorian]

Thank you for addressing Climate Defeatists. I work in a field where the greatest sin is to bring a problem up without proposing a solution. If it was truly inevitable, then why even talk about it? If the course can't be changed - why argue that we need to pour millions more dollars into the study? Let's do something!

[@ronaldvankuyk908]

Yea jason greek name he anyway don quichotte foughtagainst these windmills but this chick has asperger she talking in the unnited nations wha t was her name ronadamn

[@ickster23]

I prefer to call defeatism by another term: inevitably. It does occur. At that point you have the option of doing nothing or asking the question "how do we adapt to what is about to occur". For climate change, we're not quite at inevitably, but getting close. Why I don't worry too much is that I realize the human race is exceptionally adaptable. I also do not fear death or hardship, so I'm an outlier in terms of demographics, but it would behove Western societies to become less "soft" and to abandon the taboo we have concerning death and dying.

[@khanch.6807]

@@ickster23 I think we should try doing both. We need to adapt to changes but also make sure we are able to keep up with the rate of change. We have powerful tools like genetic engineering and AI at our hands. The survival of our potential depends on it.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@ben21nz]

@ickster23 Im on a similar page, if the climate changes, we will adapt. The possibilities are only limited by our imagination = We can build floating buildings, domes that will eventually be covered by the sea or buildings that can be raised on silts to accomodate for changing sea levels. = Agriculture can be done vertically, synthetically, food can be derived from soy, higher seas mean more floating farms, fish farms, kelp farms. = Fresh water can be collected by desalination, rain water, wind traps, etc. There are always going to be problems for us to adapt to, and we always revel in the challange.

[@ElRey_Congo]

About as sure as insurance companies are covering billions of dollars worth of property on coastal lines and politicians aligned with the “green” movement are buying multi million dollar properties on coast lines. In other words, they are more sure rising sea levels isn’t as big of a problem as alarmists would want them to believe, because when dealing with the reality of serious people, the alarmism dissipates.

[@Crosshair84]

If the people trying to convince people a problem is real don't act like they believe it is real, why should I believe it is real?

[@ElRey_Congo]

@@Crosshair84 If i read this correctly… I think that is my exact point. These climate alarmists don’t believe their own b.s. I used the buying of coastal property in the bullions of dollars worth of value. An analogy is If you were convinced that a volcano was going to blow, imminent danger to all in its path and you build a multi million dollar family vacation home at the base. This is basically what these climate alarmists are doing with coastal property. 1. You wouldn’t invest millions into property 2. Insurance companies would not cover it. These people aren’t serious about climate change, they are serious about the money climate alarmism generates

[@MariaMartinez-researcher]

Greetings. A year later, did you notice insurance companies withdrawing from Florida and California, due to the increasing disasters? And, regarding the politicians "buying multi million dollar properties on coast lines," what is more important, those few guys, or the thousands of regular people relocating from Lohachara and Ghoramara islands in India, Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, or the multiple coastal properties lost to the recent hurricanes in Florida, where now there is sea when before there was a beach? Plenty of videos showing the destruction. What are you more concerned about, politicians, or regular people?

[@Crosshair84]

@@MariaMartinez-researcher "A year later, did you notice insurance companies withdrawing from Florida and California, due to the increasing disasters?" Correlation is not Causation. Which, in CA, have nothing to do with supposed MMCC. The issues with wildfires currently is due to decades of poor forest management that has let fuel build up to dangerous levels. Large numbers of recent fires have been caused by arson. The next reason is the high costs of construction, a large portion of that is due to CA regulatory environment. Same story in Florida, the issues there have nothing to do with the strength and frequency of the storms themselves, but for other reasons. People are building expensive stuff in sometimes questionable locations. "And, regarding the politicians "buying multi million dollar properties on coast lines," what is more important, those few guys, or the thousands of regular people relocating from Lohachara and Ghoramara islands in India, Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, or the multiple coastal properties lost to the recent hurricanes in Florida, where now there is sea when before there was a beach? Plenty of videos showing the destruction. What are you more concerned about, politicians, or regular people?" You don't even understand the point being made, nor do you understand how to write coherent English. The result is this mass of incoherent gibberish. Entire low lying countries were supposed to be underwater 23 years ago. The Arctic was supposed to be ice-free almost a decade ago. These people have completely failed at predicting the future, yet you cry about every gust of wind, cold day, warm day, and everything in between as proof of your religion. People are sick of your religion.

[@geoffsutton78]

Everyone screams about CO2 but water vapor holds far more atmospheric heat than CO2 does. It is always blamed but is not the only contributing factor to warming.

[@jurkokubik6383]

This was awesome. Ive never seen anyone visualize and illustrate uncertainty and the nuances or data so well on graphs. I really wish illustrating uncertainty like you did and disproving the average line into the lines or all the sources was more common. It makes it so much easier to understand stuff well. Good job. Thx.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain..* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain..* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@Dfathurr]

My professor once said "Scientist can make mistakes, but they can't make lies Politicians can't make mistakes, but they can make lies" And none depicts it better than now

[@yoavmor9002]

Your professor sounds pretty dumb. Politicians can make mistakes just as well as scientists can lie just as well as we can make mistakes or lie... Politicians and Scientists are subsets of Humans, and as such inherit all the flaws

[@awb07d]

"but they can't make lies" guess you never heard of the field of eugenics or the old theory about ether

[@Dfathurr]

@@yoavmor9002 it's not refer to that kind that "we are humans", there's a meaningful behind Scientists, they can make mistakes but still keep up so that they can fix it in future, but they, ethically, cannot lie to public so that people know amd understand what is happening Politicians, on the other hand. They can lie (either to cover the truth or calm masses) to public for specific agenda, but they cannot make a single mistake or else it might destroy their reputations and it won't be easily fixable So a scientist who lie, is not worth to became a true scientist And a politician who makes a mistake, is politically finished and done with

[@yoavmor9002]

@@Dfathurr That's ridiculous. Many scientists lied and kept their jobs (food pyramid, eugenics), and many politicians make mistakes and remain politicians (Biden+Afghanistan, Trump+Covid, Obama+The economy, Bush+The Housing Crisis, etc etc). Their careers have been either not been hurt at all, or hurt just as much as from some lies. Everything here is a shoddy business and people are punished for lying or making mistakes by how much it hurts people and how much they could have been expected to do better.

[@sylviam6535]

I disagree. The data can be ‘massaged’.

[@asphodeleus]

Never clicked on a notification so quickly, love your work!

[@NeilHalloran]

Thank you Carl!

[@timothyrussell4445]

They're all sure we're fucked and why. What they're not sure about is how quickly it will happen, but most now think much more quickly than they did before.

[@programmer6394]

Nuclear power plants (soon to be fusion plants), making products that are designed with recycling in mind, proper forest management (yes, slash and burn prevents wildfires), regulation to prevent trash from being shipped to other countries, and a reduction in pastures around the world is an easy start to fixing the world. Yet, money reigns supreme.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is not sure.* *Here is the logical way to a understand Co2 and a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@AstralPhnx]

Money talks in this shithole of a world sadly

[@bloodybonescomic]

As a retired geologist I can tell you that we do know what sea levels were during the ice age. We also know what CO2 levels have been going back at least 700, 000 years ago. Comparing this voluminous literature that goes back over 2 centuries with televised product confusion is gaslighting of the worst sort. Now, as regards future predictions the models generated in the past have overall been very accurate. One aspect that has been corrected is that the changes are faster than previously reported. Prognostication is imprecise, but it is worth doing. Asking stupid ooen ended questions like "Do scientists really know why the temperatures are rising. More gaslighting here. Because the answer is yes. We are in deep trouble on this planet. We all are tempted to deny and obsfuscate.

[@thegunslinger1363]

In terms of subscribers. This channel is criminally underrated. Keep up the amazing work. This is among some of best content on KZbin :).

[@NeilHalloran]

Thank you so much! Let's see what the KZbin algorithm does with this one. It was very friendly to my last nuke one, but ....

[@TheDoomWizard]

Feel like you might like my channel too.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain..* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@vincentleeadams]

We're currently in the middle of an Ice Age. The Earth has experienced five major ice ages and this one is called the Quaternary. It has been characterized by alternating periods of glaciation averaging 70,000-90,000 years and interglacial warming periods of 10,000-30,000 years. There have been approximately a dozen epochs of glaciation interspersed with interglacials over the last million years. Our current interglacial, the Holocene epoch, began about 12,000 years ago. At the peak of the last glaciation, about 18,000 years ago, there were ice caps and glaciers over two miles high covering Detroit and much of North America, Europe, and the southern parts of South America and Africa.

[@aleksap5459]

This was beautifully made, thank you so much for creating and sharing this with us!

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@astrumespanol]

awesome doc, Thanks!

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@Henriktranoy]

So happy to see nonscientists grapple with this topic so diligently and such understanding of the scientific method, and its accuracy. Bravo! Hope this reach many

[@wood_5326]

Good pfp

[@johngeier8692]

@Henrik: The best scientific method is to perform controlled prospective experiments. Unfortunately, this is impossible with whole planets. Climate scientists use computer models which reflect the biases of the modellers and which amplify errors over time.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money... This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@festermann]

The only thing this clip shows is how unable we are in dealing with these issues. The fact is, that there is a change coming and there is nothing we can do, even if we want to. Simply to late - we learn only the hard way, so it seems.

[@TypdersichderTypnenn]

It's never "too late" so long as there are humans left to care for. Or rather, it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is "nothing changes", then yes it is too late. If your goal is "create and maintain a world stable enough for all humans to live a decent life on" then no, it's not too late. Our history is proof that things move very slowly for long periods of time, and then they move very rapidly over short periods of time. Political change that comes "early" enough to prevent climate change from destroying our civilization may yet come; but it will not come in the form of the election of just another candidate or political party within the system. Rather it will come from the collapse of our political system and the emergence of a new one. When and how this happens and what the replacement looks like is yet to be determined - and it depends on all of us to make decisions.

[@elingrome5853]

we're more than capable of dealing with these issues! we build dams, irrigation, we moved Chicago 170 years ago! Climate deaths are falling rapidly...

[@festermann]

@@elingrome5853 i am afraid its bigger!

[@douglassmithe9799]

This video doesn't just present an argument that's rationally sound, it's also presented in a really creative and artistic way. I reckon the ability to think both analytically and creatively/artistically is really difficult, but you've pulled it off with flying colours. Well done mate.

[@douglassmithe9799]

@@waynemyers2469 I mean if you can find the time and energy to read incredibly boring and dry academic papers to educate yourself on a topic then good for you. But most people can't, especially given most people work/study full time. Not implying that you don't, just saying that most people aren't machines, and our brains didn't evolve to read peer review journal articles.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Climates change is just a super dangerous religious cult - and a way to steal $ - nothing more! No one can debunk the video below - no at all one.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6nQhYmkmcqboKM This video is only meant for rational people. If climates change cultists want to see their devil feel free to watch.

[@thezebiano]

I felt like the animations and the whole video was alive and trying to tell me something. Amazingly well made, loved everything: the sounds, the music, the calmness, the objectivity and so much more. Thank you for this.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

*Since Neil is uncertain* *This video shows the natural forms of carbon emissions and the logical ways to a cleaner environment.* kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6ecammGgqepms0

[@demonwalker01]

As someone that’s been carefully following the research in this field I enjoyed the first half of this but was disappointed in the bottom half of it. It saddened me how he very quick descended into propaganda. He didn’t mention that all of the models he showed turned out to be over estimates or that new research proved that the effects of Co2 are logarithmic and as such are weakening. But what hurt the most was the sea level rise numbers at the end. All of them were extremes that no oceanographers support. Yes the Co2 numbers are raising but something that NEVER gets brought up but the supporters is how critically low it was at the start of this. According to botanists the minimum Co2 level to support life on Earth is 150-180 depending on the species and we were at 215-245 depending on your location at the start of this. The healthy point as far as plant life is concerned is 1000+ and as such 215-245 is critically low. But more then anything the one thing that worries me about documentaries like this is that no one EVER brooches the Co2 saturation point, if we don’t know where this is ALL forward looking predictions become mute as they consider the Co2 input to be constant despite it being know that it’s not as it’s a logarithmic factor. For reference Logarithmic input factors have diminishing gains per given unit till the saturation point is reached. I.e. first hundred units does X, second hundred units X minus Y percent and so on till they no longer provide any input to that system. For you gamers think module stacking for resistance calculations in armor.

[@klokoloko2114]

You have it here explained skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

[@k.nielsen5589]

@@klokoloko2114 really wonderful site that one

[@misterdeity]

This video is so well written, produced, and presented! Subscribed, liked, and notified!

[@Christian_Prepper]

*Last few minutes were an appeal to emotion.* *But the truth is humans can move & can relocate. You know, how we've handled climate change for thousands of years.*

[@CrusaderSports250]

The interesting thing is if only the sea ice melted the water level would go down, how much land ice would have to melt to bring that level back up?, World water levels dropped due to the ice age and only came back up when it melted, is sea level rise due to the water coming up or the land going down, the latter would be impossible to get round and be very hard for governments to tax you on.

[@Delt4_Cr4wfish]

@@CrusaderSports250 not only that he goes and shows the climate warming from the ice age and its huge in some parts, but all the warming today is human caused like give me a break.

[@jacobhuffty7411]

This video is beautiful. Not only does it explain the issue thoroughly, it also presents it in away that someone can only describe as "art". I think this should be shown to everyone in the whole world. Honestly the music made me feel like I was watching a scene from Sunday In The Park With George, or another Sondheim work.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money... This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@urulai]

I'm oddly reminded of the Population Bomb and it's own doom and gloom predictions.

[@jmitterii2]

Those didn't tend to be scientists. Many others picked up on this well before Hans Rosling. This was just an obvious question concerning the boom in human population in general going exponential, and what it meant... was there some sort of limiting factor as nature tends to do when keeping constraints on exponential. And there are: People tend to stop having as many children when child mortality declines and with decent health and food production. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH3cq3WlfdRoe6s

[@timothykeith1367]

Two hundred years ago the energy industry as we know it didn't exist. Food production has become highly automated and efficient in terms of reduction of human labor. Low cost energy has enabled the luxury of thinking that the climate could be managed. Previously hand to mouth existence was the norm and infant mortality was common.

[@dwaynepeters4520]

@@StarKiller64 There's another major reason why Malthus was wrong: he didn't predict that birth rates would fall with affluence, but they did, very drastically and all across the world. The most surprising thing is, we still don't know why. Many people have proposed many explanations, but there's no consensus.

[@timothykeith1367]

@-GinΠΓ Τάο That's me - poking the ground with sticks. Ancient cities are built on the rubble of the old cities. They didn't have dump trucks and excavators , after an earthquake they would drag off and reuse some materials, but much of it would be built over. Some ancient cities vanished with the harbor filled with silt, and sometimes a new city was built on the filled in harbor. There are 6 million skeletons in the catacombs of Paris, all of them once as living as we are now. The planet itself is far more sustainable than we are.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money. This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold

[@mikesimmons851]

This has to be the slickest piece of climatist propaganda to date. The graph of temps 15,000 yrs ago shows an actual rise of 4 degrees pre-industrial age without reference to CO2 levels. No discussion of that temperature increase is considered or offered. Post-industrial age, projections of an increase are offered as evidence that we have a problem (since when is a projection the same as evidence?), at a time when CO2 levels are around 400 ppm, with human activity being blamed, though there is no accepted scientific theory supporting this cause and effect, nor that the increase poses an existential threat. In fact, the evidence of the relationship between temps and CO2 now overwhelming points to changes in CO2 lagging changes in temperature, the opposite of what climatists have been preaching for decades. CO2 levels were as high as 3,000 to 4,000 ppm many thousands of years ago. Glacial damns as high as 2 miles froze and thawed, then burst, repeatedly, carving out the Columbia and Snake Rivers (known as the Missoula Floods). No discussion of what caused the temperature fluctuations then, but for certain it had nothing to do with human activity, nor changing CO2 levels. Around the 15:30 mark, the new climatist argument to trust the experts is that the recent temperature increase is unprecedented, it’s never changed so much in so short a time. This is a lie. Look up “Younger Dryas” - a cooling period that ended abruptly when temperatures increased 10° ± 4°C over a period of only about 40 to 50 years. This happened about 11,500 yrs ago. The video ends with rising ocean fear mongering predicting major urban areas disappearing under the seas, something that was supposed to have occurred 20 years ago when Miami was predicted to be under water, among the mostly erroneous fatalistic predictions by climatists over the past 50 years. A mini ice age ended 500 yrs ago. Guess what happens at the end of every ice age? It gets warmer. Halloran truncates pre-industrial data from consideration, makes a false claim that such rapid change in temperatures has never happened, wants to equate predictions with evidence, ignores the bevy of nearly complete failed predictions of climate catastrophe to date, then says the best we can do is listen to the experts…trust them, the high priests of the climate cult. We are rationalizing creatures, not rational. Halloran reinforces this view by pushing a policy prescriptive that will disappear new trillions of other people’s earned income to no good effect based on (political) junk science (fiction). As propaganda goes, very slick…the only form of compliment this video warrants.

[@BadgerMcblasty]

Very good retort. I’ve been wondering wether if in recent history there was an abrupt change in temp. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction and allowing me to find relevant info. Surprised this wasn’t censored. I’m guessing the AI doesn’t recognise this nuanced statement of fact.

[@wyattplaz6345]

This was pretty much my Climate Change class in one video! Excellent video and to be clear, a portion of the class did focus on human behavior and how we as scientist need to understand how relate credible information that is accepted by the public, it can be tricky to get it right. As for the rest of the information presented in this video, well on point. Ice cores have done a great job helping us understand the atmosphere of the past. The efficiency of energy is key right now and making the right decisions moving forward will gives us big boost to abatement of CO2 and reduce anthropocene influences.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

People promoters get huge government grants to push climate change: Follow the money... This video below cancels out the nonsense of this video. He missed 10 natural causes. kzbin.infovideos?&ab_channel=CaliforniaGold Do your own Research, stop being a frightened sheep. ⭐⭐

[@knowthink1245]

This needs to go viral!

[@scitech1993]

Correct

[@uncanadien3272]

and yet it's not, at all almost 24h in and it has one sixteenth the amount of views as the trailer, one one-thousandths the views of the fallen of ww2, and one one-thousand two-hundredths the views of nuclear bomb dropped in a city. He really should re-upload it again because it's not getting anywhere near the attention it deserves.

[@TheDoomWizard]

Please say the same thing about my channel.

[@erwinnijs1]

What is missing in this video are the past predictions of the IPCC. It would put it in a completely different perspective.

[@DrBernon]

Why? The newer ones are obviously better. More precise and advanced. Using newer discoveries and a better understanding of how things work, brought by the massive improvements in testing machinery.

[@omnitroph1501]

@@DrBernon Maybe his point is that comparing past predictions to present predictions might reveal how much uncertainty there actually is around the situation...

[@DrBernon]

@@omnitroph1501 No. His point is that despite the fact that there is uncertainty in science, in some cases all studies point to the same direction in such a way that while the details might be uncertain, the conclusion is not. Like in the case of climate change. The uncertainty is about how bad it is, not about its reality. And as I said, old studies are objectively worse. We have a much better understanding now due to the advances in all fields. This is like arguing the geocentric model shows how uncertain we are about the heliocentric model being true. But another important point about the video is skepticism and personal investigation. The video asks you to not just read and obsess about one study or group of studies, never take what others say at face value, and analyze yourself the data they provide to make your own conclusion. Now... Did you do that and concluded the old studies are better than the new ones? Or maybe they say what you want to believe?

[@omnitroph1501]

@@DrBernon I was referring to the point of the commenter, not the video.

[@erwinnijs1]

@@DrBernon All predictions of the past 50 years have over-predicted the warming trend. The only thing that changes every year is the starting point, which always gets adjusted down to the pressent point. This tells me only one thing, that climate science is either junk science or completely corrupted and pushing an agenda.

[@bubcat54]

Read the Club of Rome strategy below (look up who they are) “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” --The Club of Rome.

[@BAGALUTT]

holy moly, the quality of this video was unexpected! Great Job!

[@JetBob84]

As a scientist/engineer I find this REFRESHING!! Thank you for getting at the heart of issues such as uncertainty!! Wow. I have never seen such a succinct lecture on this topic, which allows open minded further exploration (no preaching). Brilliant, and THANK YOU!

[@jamesgreig5168]

The last 7 minutes was preaching at its worst!! Climate alarmism to a power of 10.

[@Tucker93669]

I’m finding trouble with the claims they make on predictions of CO2 rise with regards to “unusable farmland” in Africa and Asia… as if more CO2 (5%-20% rise) would somehow not create greater crop yields.

[@junktrunk909]

​@@jamesgreig5168surely you must see after watching this video that the increase in global temperature in the last 100 years is strikingly higher than anything that can be caused by natural processes and is in fact due to industrialization. That isn't in doubt by anyone credible, not even the super major oil companies anymore. The question is what we do about it. Yes, it's alarming, because if we do nothing there will undoubtedly be significant sea level rise and changes to weather patterns. Cities can't just be moved easily so that's a problem for billions living on coasts. I feel the video is honest about these things and optimistic that we can still do something about it.

[@Lared4life]

I’m extremely upset at the lack of views this video has

[@oneshothunter9877]

There's a lot of channels to choose from, but this Seem ok, I try it out. Subscribed. It's easy to unsub if...

[@HorstEwald]

It's picking up tho. I've never heard of this channel nor have I watched too much climate change related videooo.... oh! I watched tank shell penetration simulations and had... Neil's video about atomic blasts on cities in the feed to right. Guess that's the chain. Anyhow, I'm gonna goahead and share this video.

[@callmecrazy1983]

it somehow ended up in my feed today. Im glad it did.

[@VeeKayGreenerGrass]

Enter "Global Boiling" 🙄 Everytime I hear about carbon and humans, I remember humans are carbon... so reducing carbon means... 🤷🏾‍♀️

[@ThiloGross]

I am a scientist and in my opinion this is an excellent video. Really spot on. Perfectly done. Beautifully visualized.

[@GordoGambler]

Yup. HOAX sea rise beautifully visualized. LOL hahahahahahaha

[@earldecker7760]

You are a scientist! Thanks for informing us . Now we can believe your assessment of this video is BS. FYI -Definition of a fraud scientist is they are an expert on everything & know everything about nothing.

[@GordoGambler]

@@earldecker7760 electroverse. net/historic-cold-sweeps-eastern-australia/ TELL us where the fuck it's WARMING. LOL

[@aratirao9007]

🔳SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES ENTERTAINING CONTENT LIKE NEIL

[@agentcooper6179]

The comments here are the reason why we’re dying. What a shame.

[@josephciolino2865]

Whose dying? Are YOU actually dying?

[@Bluepilled-c5t]

Who is dying bro? Got your peer reviewed science study at hand to show that one?

[@agentcooper6179]

@@Bluepilled-c5t Two years later and you’re asking a week after it snowed in New Orleans. How fucking dumb can you be?

[@aneski]

I don't think I'll ever understand how one has the dedication to spend 3 years to make a 20 minute video. Nevertheless it was well worth the wait.

[@JS-po8oc]

@@Ziggy_Wolf Too bad you don't have any data or peer reviewed information that proves it is corrupted.

[@roysmith5711]

I just want to support this creator in every way possible, so commenting for the algorithm to pick it up.

[@smiffythecat3751]

Seems beneficial to all concerned!

[@FreakyLordSWatchingU]

KZbin has a strong short-term dependency on a liberal use of fossile fuel and overall consumerism. I would be in their place with benefits in mind, I would advise the best course of action should be to implement algorithm constraints on climate change topics

[@roysmith5711]

@@FreakyLordSWatchingU you mean censorship on topics you don't like by a private organisation?

[@FreakyLordSWatchingU]

@@roysmith5711 That would be crazy and never seen before, am I right ?

[@patrickbielecki4798]

Eyo big up bro i actually come across your comments soo often 😂

[@Craftistemv]

Please explain the mideval warm period, in which temperatures were higher than are now, the subsequent little ice age? And why, despite models told the Dutch that we would be underwater by 2020, these model predicitions fail to come true? And why do we as a people think we can control something as complex as the climate? Why wouldn't the sun have anything to do with the warming and cooling of our planet? Climate change is a fact, but human caused is the question.

[@giuliovattai770]

Your animation skills are on a other level