The "I'm not a scientist, I look at this a citizen" line is essentially constructed to appeal to people who aren't sure about the scientific consensus. It's basically a way of signalling to those people (the "swing voters", if you will) that she is "just like them", and to get them to trust the next things that she says (especially including the doubt on climate change's anthropogenic nature).
I think what was really dangerous about what she said is her general demeanour. She's knitting this warm blanket for anybody listening to wrap themselves in. "Everything is fine. Nothing to worrying about. Take a nap. I got this."
"We're not talking about it because it's not part of the agenda" has proven to be (in the years following this video) one of the most staggeringly effective platforms America has ever seen.
6:10 Biggest two-year drop refers to comparing Feb 2016 to Feb 2018. Feb 2016 was the hottest February and the second largest monthly anomaly on record. Feb 2018 was only the ninth warmest Feb out of 138 years. I would have to questions how well practiced she really was because the "two coldest years" seems like a tongue slip which she tried to correct to "largest two year drop". The coldest two year period in the last 100 years would be 1923-24. Coldest individual years would be 1924 and 1929 according to NOAA.
I don't think that it was necessarily an unintentional slip of the tongue. What you take away is the superlative 'coldest' together with the final statement of 100 years which sounds comforting.
That’s really because the record breaking heat we had in 2016 was partially caused by El Niño. But early 2018, two years later, we in the midst of a La Niña. And yet was still in the top 10 (at the time) for warmest Februarys on record globally. Also interestingly enough looking at the last 100 years (1917-2018 as that’s when this clip aired), like the women claimed in the video, the four warmest two year periods were 2016-2017, 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2014-2015. So looks like as of the clip aired, 2017-2018 was among the *hottest* two year period on record both since the 1980s and the “last 100 years”. Source: NCEI NOAA
This is brilliant. There should be a channel devoted to this kind of line by line analysis of political pundits and public figures. If you need help with that channel let me know. Sounds challenging but let's not get hysterical. We'll just mitigate the problems as they arise.
I think there is. I think it was part of the PBS family. I'm aware of it, but since I don't like politics, I've never sought it out. I think their pitch was teaching you how to navigate and critically examine all the media bullshit, fake news and punditry that politics spews at us.
I would absolutely watch this if you and Hank made it. I am aware of all the sites out there that do this already, but you guys have an audience already and would make it interesting :) www.politifact.com/ www.factcheck.org/ www.npr.org/sections/politics-fact-check
Thanks to everyone who helped tease out the point regarding the "lowest temperature / largest drop" comment that the pundit made. Here it is: Between 2016 and 2018, average global temperature dropped 0.5 degrees C, which is the largest drop we've ever seen for that particular time period. This is partially due to the fact that 2016 was a massive outlier. And saying "the largest drop ever" is true, but it makes it sound like it's the lowest temperature in 100 years, which it is not. In fact, 2018's massively lower temperature would still have been a record high in /2004/. Also, there are lots of higher one-year drops, and lots of higher 3 year drops...but if you look at 2 year drops it's the highest. There's also a 5 month period that's the largest drop for a 5 month period and...yeah...you can find little things like this, and we're not great (as a species) at understanding true long-term trends. And now 2018 looks like it might be the fourth hottest year ever, despite the fact that it started off relatively cool. The point she wants to make is "No one talks about it when temperature drops like they do when temperatures are higher than ever" but that's at least in part because, when temperatures drop they're still quite high, whereas when they spike, they're the highest we've ever seen.
Nice, I am not the only one that pays attention to it... after a number of people saying how cold it was and I was like ah... it was colder in the 90's, at one point it snowed in a place it does not snow ever(baring the point that it is only a fine line that makes it have the right conditions.).
NO no no, its a word salad. Its intention is for it not to mean anything. You cannot argue the point she is make because there is no point. She says three things in sequence all wrong so she cannot be picked up on any of them. It deliberately confuses, but is sounds bad so it must be bad. Also it sounds specific and unless you are able to paint accurate word pictures like your graph, but in words, then you will be able to countenance her 'facts'. To give you a brief look at the theory this argument is based upon you need to understand that it is all about aesthetics. This has its political origin for the conservative branch of thinking with the book by george lakoff the political mind. This book some how got swept up into the conservative movement and as conservatives have slowly drop their principles, morals and ethical base the notion of aesthetics have taken a larger role, interesting side is that the Nazis where highly aesthetically orientated. The psychology of the aesthetic dominance of conservative thinking is fascinating and highly amusing and deeply disturbing.
It's sad that moderators on programs like this no longer seem to think that challenging misleading or false claims are part of their job. They seem to think that they should let each side express their opinion, to be fair, even if the guests lie. They've let lying become normalized.
@@_ch1pset Or the people who are attracted to the show personally like a few of the people brought in enough that the people called into the show can privately threaten to not show up and thus reduce the ability of the show to operate.
All coal is dirty, ma'am. Some coal is just worse than others. BTW- I have worked in coal mines and power plants since 1979. And in nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, municipal refuse and petroleum facilities since the 1970's. Anthropogenic climate change is real. We can argue over levels of impact by different industries and different chemicals but the facts are out there.
@@bridgetmcgann7502 It's amazing how the coal lobbies took an environmentalist phrase "dirty coal" and turned it on its head. Fantastic rhetoric. Horrifyingly effective.
@@FroehligGirlz See, the difficult thing about debate as a progressive is that the burden of proof is on the ones who want things to change. It's hard convincing people that the socioeconomic benefits of safe and easy access to abortion makes it worthwhile, or that our consumerist industry will make the Earth uninhabitable if it isn't reformed. It's easy to say that abortion is murder so we should keep it illegal, and that climate change is a lie.
She carefully makes her sentences very ambiguous in order to always have a way to support her views if they are questioned by twisting facts. It’s troubling to see this type of manipulation happening considering that many individuals in different populations such as the elderly population might easily agree with her in the end. The manipulation really preys on many groups in the general public by appearing to be part of US or the general public or “citizens” not a small group. Great vid as always. Edit: I did not mean all individuals who are part the elderly population ( I did not mean to generalize any group but I was just giving an example).
Red Rose I'm so stuck on Hank pointing out that these panelists are here to explain what is happening--and then this woman is here to influence. Point that out like there's no tomorrow. Call out their dishonesty. Call out every last bit of their dishonesty, and make those appeals to the audience. This woman knows she is dishonest. You can't change her mind. But you can stop her audience from falling to her calls for division. Make her audience aware that they are being very carefully manipulated in dishonest ways.
MarkThePage I agree with you on the need for the other panelists to challenge her ideas. The issue arises when if they question her then her audience would thing that it was part of the “agenda”. I think this all comes down to we need more science communicators in order for the public to not feel alienated.
It's unfortunate, because I've been raised to think "don't believe everything you read on the internet, always confirm sources, etc." I have an inherent lack of trust in what others tell me and think it's important to double-check. But a lot of people don't think about that. They think it was on a panel, so it must be true. The person who said these things seems confident and assertive, so she must know her stuff! Scary.
+Red Rose Hey, less of the ageism please. Some of us may be elderly but we still understand what is going on and the threat we are all under. It's not just temperatures over 35C for 24 hours, rising sea levels and increased severity of storms that will kill either. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is reducing the pH of our oceans, that is where half our atmospheric oxygen comes from, once the phytoplankton can no longer thrive because of increasing acidity and high water temperature we may find it a little tough to breath (the only reason the O2 partial pressure has not fallen more than it has already is because warmer seas cannot retain so much dissolved oxygen so oxygen is being evolved from those waters which mostly makes up for the falling phytoplankton contribution, that can't last forever).
The problem is the media’s focus on _”fairness”_ that requires them to represent both sides of an issue regardless of whether both sides are equally valid. Climate deniers should get coverage equal to their evidence to refute the scientific literature...
Actually the real issue here is the rise of cable television coupled with the advent of the internet. In the time before both = pseudo-scientific claims such as climate change deniers posit would never have seen the light of day - save for perhaps in the entertainment media. That of course is because such tenuously linked and/or claims originating from entities tied to industry would never have passed journalistic vetting to be seen on-air. Today however that dynamic has been upended if you will. The rise of cable channels has resulted in the creation of "niche media" whereby channels now appeal specifically to niche audiences and as such are not hampered by things such as a lack of verifiable science. For them = ratings is all that matters so as to generate $$$$. Meanwhile the internet also lacks any type of regulatory oversight so that anyone can claim anything no matter how nonsensical and it can reach millions of people who often lack the ability to vet what is asserted. So I agree with your premise. Hitchens' Razor should apply here. Either climate change deniers provide acceptable peer-review scientific evidence subject to the same methodological rigors as normal climate science and absent any ideological or economic bias = or their assertions should be dismissed out of hand as just so much unsubstantiated speculation/conjecture. Have a nice day.
Vary Olla - we do have to blame our education system for failing these folk... fundamental concepts just whoosh over their heads... and you’re right, the internet allows what used to be one persons mental illness spread like Measles.
It always irritates me when they have a discussion about climate change and they don't invite a climatologist to contribute - an actual specialist in the subject. Instead it's 'and here's Mary from the 'American Heartland Patriot Sharp Shooter Hoorah Institute' to give her considered opinion and no, we won't be mentioning that this institute did receive a million dollars from Exxon last year for some reason (it's a mystery why - we just don't know!). 'So Mary? What do you think?' 'Well, I'm not a scientist... '
That's Hank's 1st point, though. We shouldn't dismiss people's opinions just because they're not scientists. Psychology shows that this kind of attitude turns people off if you want to persuade them, and tricks in messaging & affecting public opinion is what this video is all about.
@Rory Forbes Her role is to delay action on this global issue using the same methods used to blow smoke up people's asses about the link between cigarettes and cancer. I have no patience left with American think-tanks who are thinly disguised business lobby groups.
@Rory Forbes 'I was a scientist in a related field'. And how long ago was that Rory? Ever heard the term 'gone emeritus'? Because that's how you come across. It's plain that the scientific community has long moved on from whatever contrarian position you may hold. I want that better reflected in the media coverage. It took time to overcome the tobacco industry's media bullshit, it's the same process here.
@Rory Forbes 'It's the science community trying to get the word out...' no, it isn't - there's a very small number of contrarian scientists - people such as Judith Curry, but the vast majority of the scientific community is alarmed at what's happening and have been saying so now for decades. You've got it exactly ass-backwards, grandpa.
@Rory Forbes Wow - you actually trotted out the Oregon Petition. Tell me, have they twigged that Posh Spice and Hawkeye aren't scientists yet? Have they stopped using cover letters formatted to look like they're from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (who then publicly disavowed them)? And this lot is better than Cook? But if you don't like Cook's survey, then how about subsequent surveys by Powell, 2013 and Verheggen et al., 2014 which support Cook's findings and your assertion not at all? Again, just ass-backwards grand-pa! And there's no doubt Richard Lindzen had a distinguished career but he's been retired for years now and was known as being contrarian in nature. He contributed to a couple of the IPCC chapters but I can't find any evidence he or Curry 'held top positions'. So don't over egg the pudding grand-pa. BTW: these two are probably the best the denier crowd have to offer as actual scientists (no, Monckton doesn't count - don't even try).
My first reaction was “of course we should be hysterical!” as well. This really is a beautiful talking point, so well crafted. Also, Hank’s whole response was pretty masterful as well.
Yeah, I commend her for stepping up to challenge Pletka when nobody else was. I think Hank was a little harsh on her for "using her word," meaning she gave some of the power to Pletka for staying in her framing of the argument. I felt like she took it and redefined it correctly on her own terms, plus, she didn't have the benefit of a day of reflection before responding. It's the only sticking point I have on Hank's analysis.
The way she carefully crafts her language to imply something false without technically saying it outright... is neat, in a way. But after the segment shown here, I feel like I need a shower. Maybe it was slick, but it was *oily*. It shows she was clearly acting in bad faith, and isn't even worth talking to. I feel bad for people who aren't able to perceive how deceptive it was, who don't recognize the tricks she used or how dirty those tricks are.
North America’s emissions mean nothing in light of a single volcanic discharge. Plastic chocking out photosynthesis in the ocean, heavy metals raining down and filling our food with poison should be our concerns. Keep fighting while until we all go to sleep.
Without hate? *Privileged white man shits on woman daring to share her opinion* It’s a literal mansplaining video. He even calls her hysterical! Disgusting.
@@OurCognitiveSurplus Isn't mansplaining supposedly a condescending tone taken against someone because they're a woman whilst explaining a concept, (typically a rudimentary one). I didn't personally see it. In no way did he seem to be attacking her, but he was attacking the argument. I didn't catch him calling her hysterical btw. However, it should be noted that she called people hysterical as well. Labeling someone as hysterical can be "disgusting", given proper context. I don't think the lady used it in a crude way, just a very nefarious way. He argued the futility of fighting global warming and the false superiority of those who claim to fight him. Do i think his tone was proper? No, he's a bit to combative for my taste. However i don't see anything wrong with his argument aside from that. I disagree with him, but that's not relevant.
@@Deserrto 2 different clips, 2 different responses, 2 different messages. Hank's deconstruction is important in that it shows how language and stats can be manipulated to further a narrative. This is an important skill to have to decipher truth from misdirection (won't call it lies per se, but one could argue that they are).
There's a special place in hell for people who knowingly mislead the masses like that. The ironic thing is they don't even realize that their actions made hell several degrees hotter than it otherwise would have been.
BEM684 I take comfort knowing that her grandchildren will suffer because of her shortsighted choice to put immediate profit ahead of long-term success.
Really, Well that first graph is not correct because its NASA adjusted data , maybe u should look at this vid to understand ............ th-cam.com/video/YRXDOAhjBn8/w-d-xo.html
Being a physicist with a PhD and 5+ years of working experience nothing pisses me off than people with zero knowledge about science trying to argue science or discredit scientists. Instead, go and argue with your doctor about your health, or argue with your lawyer about your legal case or at least argue with your plumber and teach him how to plumb. I blame media for giving these maniacs air time for their bs.
I'm a PhD mathematician with a geology degree. I'm a few courses shy of degrees in physics and chemistry, but I had to get on with my life. Your appeal to authority doesn't impress me. Even the most expert of climate scientists are working with pretty soft data, and pretty weak theories, starting with the presumption that man-generated CO2 controls climate. It's a ridiculous proposition. You can make a good case for TRACKING CO2 as an indicator of ALL emissions, but in itself, CO2 is a tiny part of the whole picture. About the only guaranteed way I know of to put the planet on a downward trend with regard to pollution in general (which is a serious issue, and CO2 is just a teensy little piece of it) is PROSPERITY, which is the only non-catastrophic means by which populations seem to stabilize and go down of their own accord. Now if we could just get over the need to GROW every year, to keep the Keynesian Ponzi Scheme afloat, maybe we could EVOLVE to something better. But as soon as Europe and the USA got a handle on their OWN population growth, they look to IMPORT people who have large families, to prop up our Ponzi scheme! Instead, we should export our filthy fossil-fuel-based way of living to OTHER countries! Allow them to become prosperous, and the population pressure on the ecosystem reduces ITSELF over time, without use of force or violence on ANYone. And for all your expertise in physics, what is your expertise in climate science? What do you know about how the data are collected, sanitized, and presented for general consumption, mostly by people with a political axe to grind, or who know the BIG MONEY and HIGH STATUS go with toe-ing the CO2-is-the-great-Satan line? I see plenty of evidence that suggests they're cooking the numbers to suit their ends. That doesn't mean I'm not aware - as a geologist - of the evidence of climate change in the past. But I'm also a student of history (another degree I'm about 3 courses shy of earning), and a bit of a geek on the science of government and self-rule. And what I see coming out on the POLICY side is mostly nonsense, and detrimental to long-term well-being of humanity. But there's always someone with a good, scientific reason to become the very kind of fascist state that we fought WW II to destroy. Look at the policy proposals and think about the real effect of those policies. They all lead to authoritarian rule and a destruction of much that is good. I don't trust ANYone who seeks to make climate change their CAREER, other than legit meteorologists and climatologists, and I want to know who's paying their bills.
So non-nuclear-physicists should not argue against nuclear physicists? And we should blame the media for giving laymans airtime against nuclear, fracking...? I think you see your own bs.
Harry Mills did you just state appeal to authority and follow it with discrediting an argument with appeal to authority? What type of mathematics do you have a PhD in? just applied? Sure as hell wasnt Climatology or Probability Theory. I had to spend a year doing climate change research in Advanced Linear Regression Analysis as well as a survey class in Analysis of Temperature Change Models and the correlation of climate change caused by human fossil fuels, taking multivariable elements into consideration from several global weather data sources is above 0.92. You call that weak? Okay dude. I think you should check your own appeal to authority. I for some reason call BS on you even having a degree. Nobody with 2 PhDs would contradict in this manner.
@@plutarchheavensbee3483 Stop the "correlation" approach to analysis........even 15 yr olds doing school science know that you must define your 2 variables.....in this case CO2 causes T increase. Plot CO2 on the x-axis and T on the y-axis.....show the relationship!!! NASA data that gives lovely hockeystick curves for T vs time and CO2 vs time gives a nearly horizontal straight line for T vs CO2 (gradient 0.02 F/ppm).......shows what rubbish you have been indulging in trying desperately to promote a catastrophic scenario. Sort out your dodgy data......stop retrospectively "correcting" historical data.....stop pretending proxy data from tree rings etc etc has the same accuracy as satellite data which in turn is different to land or balloon based measured values......and the "estimated" data from most of the ocean and big chunks of desert land areas etc etc. Fancy maths cannot compensate for dodgy data.....GIGO
I immediately took the “I’m not a scientist” line as a tactic to engender the speaker to the base that would already agree with them or be swayable. It happens to have the nice benefit Hank mentioned - the people who disagree with the whole statement and use it as a “gotcha” are helping spread this idea.
@harvey, yeah. Also many people forget, money is not real. It's man made. I don't recall seeing Star Trek ship crew paying for anything.... Some day we will get there and get along. 😂
@@gytux0258 The value we give the money is what's fake. It's completely depedent on believe. As long as enough people believe that the number on their bank accounts actually has that value, then the system will work. Money is an agreement. I give you this piece of paper and you give me that computer. But just google what happens if enough people were to withdraw all their money from a bank at the same time. And it's of course obvious that we don't need money. What we really need is a healthy planet that has the capability of producing enough food for us.
@@gytux0258 learn the money system then you will understand the context. Money isn't bad. Monopoly money is just as real as the money you have in the wallet. When that natural disasters strikes, your money during that emergency is worthless as you're running out escaping for your life. Be well my friend, have a great day.
@@benatalQemy A comission tasked with assessing the risk of climate is the same as a group paid for nothing more than making a message palitable? Your claim seems lacking. Check the IPCC, sure as shit isn't a left wing think tank, son.
Well that first graph is NOT correct , its a NASA " Adjusted " one, u need to look at the raw data . How do I know that ? Its because the 1930's were much hotter than today and NASA deletes the previous graphs . NOAA on the other hand does the same and u can look up previous ones .......... th-cam.com/video/WKD6hph7z6g/w-d-xo.html ...................... Actually this one is better ............. th-cam.com/video/YRXDOAhjBn8/w-d-xo.html
How many people will end up hearing what that woman said on that panel? And how many people will end up hearing what you said in this video? Hank, you say it yourself: You have power. Please use it more.
The media should stop having these people on panels because it makes them seem legit. It's like having neo-nazis that on a panel with a liberal. It's not actually helpful even if the neo-nazis looks like an idiot, because they are still at the same level in the discussion as a liberal.
Take Hank and multiply by everybody else who has his message. I think you'll find that it is much bigger than Meet The Press, which is a creature of corporate owners and sponsors and neo-liberal bosses. Meet The Press has had a corporate-statist-fascist tilt for decades - all in the name of objectivity. Mass media is no longer the major networks. Mass media is a loose consortium of middle-class people talking to a few hundreds or thousands - and in rare cases MILLIONS - of viewers, who support them, DIRECTLY, without corporate sponsorship or censorship. Mass media is morphing into a product that consumers CHOOSE to purchase, like any other product, and the corporate "If you want to see THAT, you must watch THIS" format is going the way of the Dodo Bird. Why watch the networks, when a Joe Rogen or a Jimmy Dore can put on an un-cut, open-ended CONVERSATION. Meet The Press is about the closest thing that the networks can come up with, and it sucks, by comparison. I don't believe ANYone 100%, and I embrace the diversity of voices that the champions of so-called diversity would silence. As a former geologist, I find it very funny how people jump to conclusions about climate and our role in climate. About the only thing we've found that reduces carbon footprint is PROSPERITY. Don't like how Americans pollute? Well, did you notice that once people reach a certain level of prosperity that they start having fewer children, voluntarily? You want to fix the global climate (Good luck with that. My guess is it's beyond us, and that we are fleas on a thin-skinned dog, thinking we ARE the dog.)? Make (allow) people to be prosperous, and population slowly drops, naturally, over time. How do you get prosperous? Have a limited government that protects persons and property and get the hell out of people's way. Like all elitists, you folks bemoan the fact that others aren't as enlightened as YOU, which justifies your doing any wack thing you feel is necessary, (willfully) unaware of the (unintended) consequences of your use of force, and the long-term counter-forces you create EVERY TIME. Liberals are like farmers who figure if a little bug spray helps, then a TON of bug spray will help a TON. So seeking a bug-free crop, they poison their own crop.
When she says that she's not a scientist, she's a citizen, she is not saying it as a disclaimer. She is deliberately creating the impression that scientists that are not citizens, that they are some strange, set apart "other," with an "agenda" that means "we" can't talk about things. She is a mastermind of manipulation - she isn't just trying to convince anyone that climate change isn't a problem, she is working to create a more anti-science, anti-intellectual climate over all. When she says some super-confusing, inconsistent nonsense about the two coldest years, it's not because *she's* confused or because she believes a word of what she is saying. She isn't someone who disagrees , she is not speaking in goos faith from a real set of ideas she actually holds, so it is impossible to address her bizarre statement in good faith. She isn't stating what she believes or understands, she is just saying words which she knows will create a desired effect in some of her listeners, the effect of being confused and not knowing what or whom to believe.
Considering that scientists were caught colluding to lie about global temperatures with their own memos and documents when the global warming hysteria first started and that scientists backed up Al Gore's assessment of global warming because of personal politics what I get from "I am not a scientist.", is that she doesn't have a paid for agenda like the global warning scientists did. I find it COMPLETELY disingenuous that the clip started before she was introduced. If she was introduced as someone from a think tank then everyone should know she has an agenda of her own. If you don't know that think tanks are biased then you should be working on getting informed instead of agreeing with anyone including someone who believes what you do.
@Narrative Knight: do you mean the "Climategate" e-mails? Sensationalised and taken out of context; see: www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
@@thromboid that is what I meant. The 'independent' investigators are all climate change activists. If these investigators actually believed the reports they made then we would still be talking about 'global warming' instead of 'climate change'. Not even the far left now will call it 'global warming'. If all of those studies about 'global warming' were accurate and reliable then the conversation would not have changed. The left doesn't let go of an argument unless the argument is already over. This argument is still going full steam ahead, the only reason the left switched to 'climate change' is because they want everyone to forget that all of the persons screaming about global warming are the same ones who abandoned global warming. The scientists protecting their grants from leftist governments got busted and so they offered climate change to their governments as a replacement which would allow the same policies to be touted as necessary. Governments want more money so scientists create a reason for needing it which means the government will kick back some of that money to the scientists. That is why everyone on the left is running around in circles trying to create hysteria so no one will have the courage to stand up to them. They are trying to 'save the planet' so standing up to them when statistics can be used to 'prove' almost anything takes a huge amount of courage and the ability to survive political backlash. Global warming or climate change, no matter what you want to call it, is not an existential threat. When renewable resources become reliable and cheap then all use of fossil fuels will end. This will happen long before human activity can cause damage to the planet that we cannot fix. This is what most people believe because it is what they see happening. Renewable resources will eventually replace fossil fuels which will have more and more of its bi-products cleaned up while we wait for that to happen. If you want to 'save the planet' then create a device that you can attach to mufflers which captures all emissions for recycling and sale to the companies that need it.
It would have been entirely appropriate to keep calling it global warming, because that's what it is. However, that can lead to confusion between a net warming (such as we've seen in the last century or so) and the natural retention of heat that balanced out the planet's heat losses into space. It's the same phenomenon - we've just tilted the balance. Also, because the planet doesn't warm uniformly (and the models are quite consistent with this), there were silly arguments like "but it snowed here last week - so much for global warming!". You might as well say "World hunger?! But I just had lunch!" Specifying the human-caused component by adding "anthropogenic" is also appropriate, now that we can accurately identify that part of the warming (by measuring isotope fractions in the atmosphere). Guess who else has a cosy financial relationship with governments: industries like energy and agriculture. I trust you're as critical of their role in influencing policy. And it's not just burning fossil fuels: deforestation is a major contributor to AGW because trees act much like the tailpipe CO2 mops you mention. Climate scientists have generally been careful to avoid policy statements, and stick to their job of determining what is actually true - what you do with that knowledge of reality is where politics steps in. Trying to turn the science of an issue into a political one is a slippery strategy. More fundamentally, why is being paid for a job such a "smoking gun" for corruption? By the same argument, no professional is trustworthy. Is cancer just a scam invented by oncologists? Oil changes a giant hoax by greedy car mechanics?
Thank you, Hank, for taking the time and effort to deconstruct this and debunk it. Also, I'd like to thank you for sharing your ability as a clear thinking person to clear this up for others.
She's saying a lot without saying much at all. It's practically just like legalese- it sounds important and educated, but doesn't make a lot of sense once you actually dissect it. To those who haven't educated themselves and reached their own conclusions based on data and facts, this can sound like she knows what she's saying, but to those who have, you know it's propaganda. She's just someone using words in a very particular way to convince other people to get on board with this group's agenda. The unfortunate problem is that there's a lot of people out there who form their opinions, beliefs, and ideas based on what other people have to say about the data and facts instead of the data and facts themselves. Therefor, this tatic has, and always will be, an effective one.
She's hitting around the edges of the FACT that ALL climate predictions using the "consensus" models that ASSUME CO2 is driving climate, have over-estimated temperature increase EVERY TIME. The models suck. Everybody knows it, except the hard-core, left-wing deniers, living in echo chambers, and latching on only to the facts - whether legitimate or cooked-up by "experts" - that support their pre-determined opinions. I'm not saying that kooks on the right don't do the same thing. I'm just saying that people who look to government to solve all problems are only too happy to embrace whatever crazy (and ineffective) policies the elites cook up, without considering the long-term consequences. This is classic mafia-style extortion, and liberals swallow it, whole, and ignore or dismiss any and all facts that show their theories are not very good.
I think the point of bringing up that word choice was that "anthropogenic" sounds a lot more scientific than "man-made" and that makes the speaker look like she's well acquainted with the topic.
Great video! In the Netherlands we just had a record warm, dry summer. Although regular people enjoyed the weather, it was very bad for the farmers and their crops. The water levels have sunk so low that it could take decades to reach the normal height, and that is assuming rain will fall as normal, but it just as well might not. I wish people actually would get hysterical about climate change. We need to hit the emergency brakes hard and fast, regardless of the economic consequences. What use is money if food is scarce? Only the very rich will survive. I guess that's why Trump doesn't care.
Thank you, Hank, for taking the time to explain how these people manipulate the truth for their own gain. More people need to think harder about what they hear on the television or on social media because even if something sounds convincing, it doesn't make it true.
Oliver Siegel, climate scientists who go along with the man made climate change theory get billions of dollars in international funding. Those who disagree get nothing. Just how much money do you supose scientist who disagree get from fossil fuel companies? The entire Heritage Foundation has recieved $780,000 from EXXON MOBILE since 1998 and $1.7 million from Koch brothers. Agenda 2030 is a push for global socialism. The United States is 2nd only to China in wind energy and 4th in solar power. None of which would exist without fossil fuels. There is nothing extraordinary going on with the climate. If you believe that we have just 12 years or the world is done for, you are a fool.
@@touchtoomuch1000 So you're telling me "they" have BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at their disposal, and "they" use it to create FAKE SCIENCE about climate change, so that "they" can manipulate the public and make them believe something that is actually not true, so that eventually "they" can push GLOBAL SOCIALISM? Damn, I guess we're really fucked, huh? No honestly bro, stop worrying about "them" lying to you. The earth is not flat. There's no point in creating a big huge lie to manipulate you. Nobody would benefit from global socialism. The only one benefiting from the status quo is oil companies (and that's also the only one lying to you, or at least trying to confuse you, as displayed in this video) Look, if you fill up your gas tank every week for $20 (which i assume you do), and let's say 1/3 of all Americans do the same, that's 2 billion dollars in revenue from gas stations alone. So approximately $285 million every day. Do you think they wanna stop this? No, which is why they pay someone to go on TV and make it all like "I don't know that there's a problem". And whatever crazy ass conspiracy theory you picked up was either made up by someone who's a little nuts, or I wouldn't be surprised if it was planted by someone from big oil, perhaps indirectly.
Oliver Siegel, That's pretty much what I'm saying. Just what have they done with the billions of dollars to stop anything? Have you learned anything more about climate change from all their research? I'll tell you one thing I've learned that you never hear them mention, in 2017 they discovered 91 new volcanoes under Antarctica's ice, bringing the total to 138. They also discovered super heated mantle plumes melting the ice from beneath. The amount of temperature rise that they report is well within the margin of error. Just what do they compare it to anyway? Back in the 19th century the vast majority of temperature readings came from Europe and the USA. Now they have over 7000 stations in 200 countries. They get monthly readings from 2000 of them. There is 57.5 million square miles of land. That means that each station represents 28,750 square miles. Just how accurate is that for science? The planet is always changing. Al Gore didn't get his enormous wealth from inventing the Internet.
I'm studying environmental studies and climate change, i'm senior in college, and breaking down pundits is something we do fairly often. My problem is - I'm now knowledgeable enough to at least second guess what people are telling me, but most people aren't - how do we as concerned citizens help other people not buy into pundits? I've even seen a couple of comments on this video of people saying that what she said made sense face value, at first glance. Most of the time, first glance face value is all the thought we put into segments we hear. How do we fight this type of punditry? Without giving every single person a baseline knowledge on climate, which is ideal but impossible.
PinkysaurusRawr that's what schools and universities are supposed to teach you in classes like History and languages. But as none of the people that decide on the curriculum have anything to gain from critical thinking, well. Back when my father had to do mandatory military service (in Germany about 30 years ago), he said they didn't like the folks preparing for uni. They didn't follow orders well;p
Strip the dumb masses of their democratic power and let intelligent elites run the country. Oh wait, part of this is already the case. Jokes aside, naive people are able to connect to other naive people thanks to global 'social' networks. Education on critical thinking really has to start as early as possible. As a parent, teacher, sibling, whatever. Later, they're only going to believe what they like to hear. I've kind of given up on trying to convince (adult) people about reasonable thinking and not jumping to conclusions right away. Actually, on changing someone's opinion on subjective topics in general (climate change is a thing of belief for some, same goes for politics). The older they were, the more unlikely it became for them to take a perspective other than their own one. Sorry if this sounds condescending. I'm just happy, science has a definitive answer where you can tell right from wrong most of the time. :)
The problem with "teaching kids to think critically" is that school curriculum is also subject to politics. So "critical thinking" can mean "be critical of biased sources" or "be critical of scientific consensus." Both of those can be broadly categorized as critical thinking by savvy bureaucrats with an agenda. I'm an environmental economics PhD candidate and I've been doing research on voter turnout for environmental-issue referendums. There's some interesting results from meta analyses for voter turnout, in general. Populations that are homogeneous, affluent, highly educated, and use simple election systems like first-past-the-post have the highest voter turnout and more voter cohesion on political issues, especially the environment. That's why you see small wealthy nations in Europe leading environmentalism. The US is heterogeneous with large pockets of poverty and little college education, and climate change is a complex issue with no verifiable concrete impact on daily life (it's about trends, not singular disasters like oil spills). The US political system is simply not equipped to seriously tackle climate change. Because of this, I think the answer is to not leave these decisions to the federal government. It would be great if we could, but states are more homogeneous and the most populace states happen to also be the most affluent and usually the most liberal. I think the path forward in the US is, unfortunately, relying on the good will of corporations and on the innovations they willingly produce on issues that happen to impact them directly (cutting out resource use to cut costs). I think educating the public would be great and federal cooperation would be great, but everything I've read so far is telling me not to bet all the money on those horses. At least not until the US goes through significant ideological shifts that do not seem forthcoming.
She says "anthropogenic" to specifically counter her own statement that she is not a scientist. It's a $10 word showing that, while not an actual scientist, she is still "highly educated" and so her opinion should carry weight. It's an intentionally confusing and misleading way of showing "honesty" in debate (I'm not a scientist), but then immediately turning around and signalling that people should listen to her position anyway because clearly she's studied the topic and knows the lingo (which she wants you to translate to knowing what she's talking about). Now they can keep making any BS points they want because they know they've now tricked some into giving those points credence, but if you call them on it they'll point back to where they said they weren't a scientist as a defense of their integrity.
@Rory Forbes That's really your best comeback? My suggestions as to her rhetorical motivation in using the word has nothing to do with my understanding of the sciences she is commenting on by using it. You do realize that, right? Don't shine up your fancy new soapbox to lecture me on strawmen and ad hominem attacks and then be intellectually disingenuous enough to immediately make hypocritically identical attacks on my inability to "understand the science" and your own biased speculation of how my use this or that line of rhetoric was only done as cover for my "ignorance" of something I wasn't even talking about anyway as if no one would notice.
@@NekoMouser "My suggestions as to her rhetorical motivation in using the word has nothing to do with my understanding of the sciences she is commenting on by using it." It does, however, suggest that you want to control the language of your ideological opponents to the point where they will be summarily dismissed.
@@PvblivsAelivs Recognizing and naming the tactics she's using is not the same as wanting to control her language. You are allowed to call people out when they are using deceptive rhetorical devices in an attempt to mislead and obfuscate their intentions. You can decide if you agree that is the tactic she is using or not and if you will dismiss her based on it or not. Personally, I dismiss her for many other reasons, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in her claims, but I also believe that she is intentionally using a dishonest tactic here as well.
@@NekoMouser "Recognizing and naming the tactics she's using is not the same as wanting to control her language." Claiming the language she uses (your reference to $10 words) to be such a "tactic" _is_ an attempt to control her language. It is saying that it is dishonest for her to use language you do not approve. "Personally, I dismiss her for many other reasons, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in her claims, but I also believe that she is intentionally using a dishonest tactic here as well." Let me call out this dishonest tactic of yours. It is quite clear that you have dismissed her because she has taken a position of which you do not approve. But it's not very convincing to put it like that.
@Fabian Lohrmann "There is no reason to say anthropogenic instead of man-made (that's what it means I assume?) other than confusion and claiming authority through superficial factors like rhetoric." It is an official term for the claim. If she had made up the term when the climatologists all said "man-made," you would have a point. Or are you arguing that the supposed experts are/were only trying to confuse and claim authority through superficial factors like rhetoric? I have little doubt that, if she _had_ said "man-made," people would be talking about her ignorance of the term "anthropogenic."
I have been carefully examining this matter for over a decade, and find that the threat has been greatly hyped up, which is betrayed by the myriad of "climate models" that have consistently projected much more warming than has been observed. I see as somewhat obvious that this has become the centerpiece (regardless of what it originally was) of a massive push for global Governance, which is to say the effective overthrow of "rule by consent of the governed", and a return (where needed) to rule by a few elites.
What is the worst think that can happen from taking action to clean up our act and in the process clean up the Earth; maybe we leave a cleaner world to future generations? Whoa! That would be just awful! (Sarcasm, it's what's for breakfast.)
@@EddyFong ~ Don't you realize that the U.N. is exclusively a coming together of the most powerful people in each nation? As in, the "global elites"? The whole thing is a con, BY global elites, I'm quite sure . . Have you not noticed the calls to END democratic governance (so climate change can be defeated)????
@@sorchaOtwo ~ Go for it, clean up YOUR act . . The "West' has already cleaned up their/our act rather well as far as I can tell . . What are you talking about? CO2 is not "dirty", it's an absolutely vital (trace) gas that asll plants require to live and grow . . which means all animals require, to continue eating . .
@@johnknight3529 "Rather well" snooty if not ignorant. We're responsible for allowing industry to exploit people in far off lands. We're still dumping TONNES of plastic in the ocean. The animals are going extinct at an alarming rate. But you wash your hands of it mate.
Does it matter if Europe is worse than us in this one specific way? The USA is still on planet earth with Europe. The fact that they are doing worse..... directly effects us.
Words matter. All across the board, the bad guys are really really good at choosing loaded words that kill in disguise. When listening to discussions regarding the basic human rights of a certain portion of us, for example, is the word used “homosexual” or “gay”? Do they refer to sexual “preference” or “orientation”? Most people think those are synonymous. They are NOT, nor are they meant to be. The bad guys almost invariably say homosexual and preference. Homosexual reduces a person to a sex act, it denies a full identity. Preference implies choice, orientation correctly describes something that cannot be changed.
I've seen a million people use arguments like this, they're so deliberately dishonest, it's maddening. You can see exactly what they're doing easily enough if you see these arguments often but she isn't giving out this message for people who actually know anything at all about climate change, it's to sow doubt among the general population that doesn't actually pay attention to climate change.
Yeah......simpler to just name-call anybody who might agree with you.......disagreers have no human rights and should be sneered at.......and above all, don't even try to see if they might have a valid point.
@@petero9189 1) there was no name calling 2) her human rights have not been brought into question by anyone 3) her points were addressed and promptly eviscerated as the dishonest drivel it is
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Very_low_sulphur_coal No source of energy is completely "clean" (See section 3.4. LCA results in gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Muller-M.2010.pdf if you aren't convinced) but to make the assertion that there is no distinction between different types of coal in their emissions is just ignorant. It's not misleading; it accurately describes the type of coal that must be used by certain coal plants without flue gas delsufurisation units to meet required output limits on sulfur emissions. It's clean relative to it's counterparts that's why the name exists not because its a magic emission less energetic substance. If someone is mislead about that notion of clean coal I don't really care because they would obviously not be making important decisions in energy regulation or production. Maybe they should just do five minutes of research to find out what something really is.
@@jaydentownsend5402 Yes solar is significantly better than carbon based sources of energy in terms of it's "cleanness" or more accurately sustainability (Refer to www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power/ for a more detailed comparison of the two.) That being said solar panels still have a number of problems, even if all electricity was sourced from renewable sources. For a quantitative analysis of solar panel life cycles and emissions and material inputs check out www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/230_SolarEnergy_PV_LCA_2011.pdf Fossil fuels are way worse but there are still negative externalities from using solar power that shouldn't be ignored just because it's better than coal or NG.
@@andrewimpellitteri1665 What about harnessing lightning in the next hundred or so years? It's been thought about for years. Personally I think solar technology, even wind is the best option we currently have. And yes mining minerals in general is hard and expensive, especially when it is not carbon. which is found almost everywhere. Maybe we need to perfect what tesla was on about. Yet that could potentially destabilize the atmosphere. Who knows?
@@jaydentownsend5402 not sure about lightning as a power source but I think it would be quite difficult to do effectively. Wouldn't probably have too many environmental effects but there probably isn't an efficient infrastructure design that could work or alternatives would almost certainly be cheaper.
Some perspective: We're in an ice age. We could do with some slighter higher temperatures. Life evolved and thrived with CO2 much higher than we have now.
An analysis suggests that in 2040 the climate will disrupt food production so much that we'll be rioting for it. But sure, "we could do with some slightly higher temperatures" for like 10 years and then our neat vacation is over.
@@Ole_Rasmussen On the contrary, increased CO2 will increase food production. The deserts will green. This is because fewer and smaller stomata are required to eat CO2, and thus *much* less water will be lost by to plant through the stomata to transpiration. Temperatures on the earth were quite moderate in the past with much higher CO2 than we have now. In fact we have suffered ice ages with CO2 three times higher than current. The problem is with the phrase "the analysis suggests", which itself suggests mere modelling rather than real data. I'd rather go with geological precedent than faulty human modelling.
I would take the threat more seriously if the models that they use could even come close to an agreement. I have seen the results of the 4 closest models as of 2015, and they are so far off from one another that I have to conclude that what ever happens will happen.
Good point, Mark! You are the first I see who points out that we are in fact living in the time of ice ages. Whatever the short term climate may do, we will be dealing with a very cold, crushing problem in our future. Fortunately, it will set in gradually, so that there can be an endless supply of media hysteria, scientific posturing, and all the usual politics and propaganda before we justify the decision to invade Central America.
@@JeremyBurnett For sure the models are stupid, esp the one the IPCC uses. The reality is far far worse than these models are showing which is why daily we hear the words "faster than expected" because the models are wrong and it's happening faster.
This was a great deconstruction and I would so support more videos like this. Maybe not on your channel, not even necessarily by you, but pulling out the data and analyzing the verbiage used by pundits like this is super interesting.
He literally said that everything she said was basically a fact or could be proven in some way statistically. However, there is that last line, where even I think she is right. Most climate change activists (at least journalists and those in the media and those on youtube from what I've seen) think humans are gunna turn Earth into venus. Like hold on, let's go over some history, we are in the end of an ice age, something the Earth has had plenty of. Meaning the Earth naturally has its own climate change. All humans are doing (if you believe in man made climate change) is accelerating it. The Earth will warm and Antarctica will turn back into a rainforest due to the high levels of CO2. Millions of years of higher heat will accelerate growth of vegetation and precipitation (rain). Then comes something amazing, there will be more plants than CO2 available, CO2 plumits and plants release 02 (oxygen) and some like beans produce nitrogen. Thus the cycle goes back, the plants have eaten all the CO2 and there is O2 cooling the Earth back down. Bam another Ice Age begins. Unless humans can produce enough CO2 to keep the Earth warm. This is or could be the end of climate change, instead everyone believes that it's the beginning. We are terraforming our planet and manipulating its weather for the future so we can continue to grow food. If an ice age happens again, where are you going to grow crops? Indoors hydroponic or aquaponically maybe. But why waste the resources? Why freeze when we could live tropically?
Cowgill, terraforming is a great idea if it is planned out. I'm not sure if I want the free market to decide how our climate changes, I'd rather have a group of people who actually understand climate change to be in charge of that.
You're right about that much. The big money is from governments funding AGW research. If you want to get on the gravy train, you better argue that the sky is falling.
The problem with climate models is that the foundation on which they are based is flawed because it is assumed the sun has a very limited efect on the climate. And that is because cosmoligy itself has some of its very foundations incorrect. Plasma universe holds the answers to widening our understanding of cosmology and with the adjusted baselines to climate models, they would show human effects on climate next to non existant. But too many in science and research have a carreer based in the traditional models of cosmology, not to mention ego, and so they keeep searching for non-existant dark mattter and dark energy and unwittingly keep so much of the public in the dark(in regards to causes of climate change) as a result. BTW: not a scientist but once i had a nerdy three-way with a couple of science majors.
Slipp E. Physter Nicely said. He would probably have a snowflake melt down if he learned about climate forcing and plasma cosmology. Loved him blaming European countries for burning high sulfer coal. Where does he think that they bought that coal from.... the US
I'm not a biologist but I don't believe in bacteria, I think it was all made up by Big Pharma to get us to buy antibiotics. Seriously debating whether I should actually post this or not, some flat-earther might get ideas...
**watching as I'm getting ready to leave** "Don't watch it if you're not going to watch the rest of the video." Well fine then. **adds to Watch Later** XD
We now have satellite temperature going back to 1978. More than 95% of the climate models and all the multiple variations of these models predicted far more warming then was observed in the satellite record.
It a big scam. We are in for some cooling for the next twenty years. It cyclical and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. The Earth will have many more ice ages before it ends.
Why is it that people who use the term SJW - either as an abbreviation or spelled out - often have no real argument of their own? Could it be because they haven't really looked into the topic? So it seems to me...
I'll give it a shot explaining some of the basics, despite not generally labeling myself as a Social Justice Warrior. Note: I provide the below explanation because I used to think there were problems with the science as well, but further research has shown me that is not the case, and I'd like to help others see this to further the discussion. In general though, someone not being able to explain something too you is not good proof that it is false. If you go up to the average person and ask them to explain how we know time is relative based on your speed and the speed of light is an absolute limit I doubt they could give you much of an explanation. This doesn't mean it isn't true, and believing the people that have studied this is a good idea. Anway, explanation. We are burning carbon that has been stored below the surface, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. Just to head off on of the typical objections, yes, there are other things that release CO2, like volcanoes, but they are part of the typical CO2 cycle, which isn't overall adding or removing CO2, just rotating it around. Since the oil and coal has been deposited below the surface, burning it introduces new CO2 into the system, increasing the baseline concentration. And in any case, the increased concentration matches up with the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. CO2 has an absorption spectra (how much it absorbs different wavelengths of light) that overlaps quite a bit with the earth's radiation spectrum (how much light is emitted from the earth at different wavelengths, which is how heat is lost from the earth) and not much with the sun's radiation spectrum (how heat is gained by the earth). Since the CO2 absorbs more light emitted by the earth, it traps some of that heat but without blocking much energy from the sun, causing the net energy balance to increase and temperature to rise. Note that this gets much more complicated as to the actual amount of temperature increase since the molecules also emit the light again, absorption is different at different layers in the atmosphere, the energy balance depends on the overall absorption of the new emission spectrum of the earth at the new temperature, absorption has a logarithmic effect, the effects of other molecules (such as methane and H2O) are also significant in different parts of the absorption spectrum etc... Suffice to say these don't affect the trend of increasing CO2 leads to increasing temperatures, and that the increase is not negligible at current concentrations. See here for a more in depth explanation: scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/. That site also has very good overviews of the science of almost every part of how climate change works. Hope the information is useful to you in some way, and let me know if you have any questions on it.
Hi, and thanks for the reply. I was not expecting that you would accept climate change. I find a lot of the people who speak of SJW tends to deny man-made climate change, and also basic facts and mechanics regarding CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Just another reminder to be aware of prejudice, and the fact that we all have at least some of it... ;) Myself including, if that is unclear. :D The point I try to make when debating climate change is that the efforts needed to reduce emissions long term tends to be beneficial short term. One example is coal-fired power plants, their emissions locally as well as the dangerous leftover product, coal ash. Better public transportation is another; where you reduce the need to build roads and at the same time provide a transport alternative for those with low income. This is beneficial to society in many ways.
@hankschannel: I'm glad I watched the video till the end. It was worth the watch (time). Your analysis is admirable. The best thing I liked about the analysis was how you distanced yourself from getting involved in the issue personally. Good for you! HC-JAIPUR (25/09/2019)
"We don't talk about it... it's not part of the agenda." What agenda? Who's we? Whose agenda? If the agenda prevents mention of itself, how does she get away mentioning it? Great deconstruction Hank! 👍☺👏
Thanks Hank. This is a brilliant dissection of the sort of typical conservative issue-framing that gets presented *as though* it is an actual argument. Your video is an even more scathing examination of how the media immediately accept framing like this, without question, without thinking, without even blinking. Media pundits and liberal politicians are nearly always guaranteed to take the bait, rather than address any actual argument being presented (assuming there even is one). While thinking people work to establish the facts and find reasonable solutions, conservatives are busy sowing discord and manipulating how people feel. The only thing making that a brilliant strategy is the ineptitude of liberals, scientists, journalists and others to see what's actually going on.
Isn't it odd that your criticisms are asserted by every political viewpoint? Persuasion tactics are ubiquitous. Artificial divides are well funded perpetuating failure to consolidate populace against meaningful threats to wellbeing like pollution via glyphosate, endocrine disruptors in water such as Pharma pollution, fluoride, glyphosate, addicted nation, fatter, sicker w no end in sight. Fear is the mind killer, #QuestionEverything
It’s a 30 sec segment that took hank 15 min to dissect. It’s not feasible to ask people in the middle of conversation to repute it on the spot. The problem is larger than winning this one battle and it will take efforts like this video to combat it. Blaming the media is easier than accepting the much harder reality that has plagued history forever: people are easily fooled
Hank, I REALLY reccomend you check out The Alt-Right Playbook playlist made by the channel Innuendo Studios. It discusses the rhetorical strategies used by political speakers of all stripes but recently capitalized upon by the right in general and far right in specific. Its a fascinating dissection, and good listening to boot.
I'm really against calling all your opponents alt-right aka Nazis which he does. Basically the alt-left playbook (call all opponents Nazis). There are some good things there, it just irks me how he approaches it in that series.
@ not everyone alt right is nessarly a Nazi (alougth there is alot of over lap) Also the coining of the term alt left in it's self is a tactic, it's the "your just as bad as us" argument when in reality the radical left is barely a thing while the alt right and neo Nazis have had literal marches with literal Nazi flags so it isn't a stretch to call some of them neo Nazis or worry about them. Also I haven't seen one actual argument about any so called alt left tactics that didn't amount to a whole bunch of vauge conspiracies about the media or other such thing.
@@noname-zp1yh Very, very few people called alt-right by others are actually alt-right. The alt-right is probably one of the most misunderstood political "movements" out there. For example, when people claim the Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shapiro are alt right. It's used to be able to to bunch up people, condemning them by proxy through association and completely dilutes the political conversation, even if it is the furthest thing from the truth.
Am I the only one who didn’t find her at all convincing? This just seemed like a bunch of climate skeptic talking points that I’ve heard hundreds of times before. I’ve heard much more convincing arguments from other climate skeptics.
You aren't the target audience. The target audience is old people, primarily (Meet the Press Sunday morning). And it's old people who already agree or are easily manipulated.
@@culwin NO.....old people were involved in, or immediately affected by, the world wars against the Leftist takeover...Fascists, Nazis, Russian Communism, Chinese Communism...cold war, Vietnam war ......massive number of deaths...... so they easily resist the latest leftist takeover rhetoric using "saving the world" as a reason to need to take over the world and impose draconian measures on everybody....including denying 2nd and 3rd world peoples any chance of improving their grim lot in life.
This is why I can't partake in news media anymore. Everyone is crafting their arguments so carefully and deviously that it's hard to know who to trust. (Not that I believe any anti-climate-change arguments for a second anyway...)
So true. And I bet if someone on the panel had asked her to clarify that confusing sentence about dropping temperatures, she'd have had another ambigous statement at the ready. It's so hard to get to the bottom of things in these kinds of shows.
What you have to remember is that any media that relies on advertising does not care about validity, it only cares about clicks. All advertised media optimizes for views and not truth. The only news that can be somewhat trusted in paid prescription. Prescription-based models still care about readership, but the readership changes more slowly so individual stories don't require immediate clicks and views. That's how the Economist can stay so boring and informative.
The antidote to confusing information is more information. Most of the people that work in media are just stiff workers like everybody else, it's not a conspiracy and editorial lines tend to be pretty clear from the outset. The main thing is that science is not something that should be politicized. Studies are backed by corporations, think tanks or universities and things with names like the "Group for Concerned Citizens About Economic Impact of Climate Change" are like usually think tanks financially backed by oil/coal investors... Unfortunately, there are people that are supposed to do that legwork for us - they are called scientists. But lately, they've taken out scientists from leadership positions on the White House and replaced them with lobbyists.
I would agree with this sentiment when it comes to television news on a widespread scale. There are a lot of bad faith arguments and agendas that get pushed onto the population. Some channels are interested in propaganda for one viewpoint (*Cough* Fox) while others are more interested in scaring you or making you angry (CNN) to increase your engagement. That being said there are still plenty of journalists doing great work, I would argue these sources exist primarily in the written publications. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Economist, Financial Times, NPR, National Review are all participating in responsible journalism is the U.S.
Miranda Finn - Then outreach to independent media platforms, not the televised MSM outlets (ex FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC Nightly, etc). Try Al Jezeera, RT, Reuters, The Intercept, TruthDig, MediaMatters, Axios, Mediaite, Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac, Splinter, etc.
The "I'm not a scientist" bit is just a common tactic to be able to spout any old bs to undermine almost all of the world's scientists.....basically saying; "I'm not scientist, but looking at alternate facts I, somehow, know better".
@jbaz77777 Even if what you say it's true, it's a moot point. The issue isn't the levels of CO2, but how how fast the level is changing. Previously when temperature and CO2 levels changed, it took many hundreds of thousands of years at least. With human activity, the levels are changing on a timescale which is orders of magnitudes shorter, therefore not allowing ecosystems time to adapt to the change, where previously they could. If ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough you get mass extinction. If we get mass extinction, the global food supply runs dry as the complex systems which allow human agriculture and fishing cease to exist. And well we don't want that to happen.
@@CockatooDude, how fast the level of CO2 changes is not relevant to anything beyond how fast the level of CO2 is changing. If you quadruple the CO2 around a plant it will be just fine, and you can do that almost instantly in a commercial greenhouse. Most operators pump in CO2 and levels are three or four times the 400 ppm in the general atmosphere. The real problem will appear if we see CO2 drop below 150 ppm, causing most plants to die.
Quaddo: sadly Dr Mann is not a scientist either! He is the developer of the hockey stick graph. Read, and learn: www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
@@Ron_the_Skeptic I see why you would make that comparison but I would like to let you know why it is flawed, if I may. You cannot simply compare a greenhouse to the Earth. In a greenhouse, it makes perfect sense to pump up the CO2 levels as there are only a few types of plants inside which are being sustained by the grower. However the Earth's ecosystems are far more complex, and have evolved to optimize around current CO2, and more importantly, heat levels. Corals are a good example of this, raise the average temperature a bit and suddenly there are hot points during the summer where the polyps cannot survive. They can of course regrow, but if that period is too long, then the coral dies. Over time the polyps can adapt to higher temperatures, but it takes hundreds of thousands of years, not just hundreds. And this isn't just speculation, we can see this happening right now, over *half* of all corals around the world have died in a bleaching event between 2014 and 2017, here's a link if you are interested: coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/global_coral_bleaching_2014-17_status.php It is not debatable that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, that is a proven fact. The issue isn't whether or not it's good for plants, it's whether or not it's good for global ecosystems. I used the example of coral bleaching as it really highlights how serious this issue is. But species on land will fare no better if the atmosphere warms beyond a certain threshold. And the atmosphere is warming, the temperature data was presented in the video. So I will say it again, if the temperature changes too fast, ecosystems cannot adapt in time, and biodiversity takes a massive plunge, like is happening right now with coral reefs. Most of the world's fish get their food from coral reefs, as they are the oceans' forests. If the reefs die, the fish die, if the fish die, billions of people who depend on them for food starve. Not only that, but nutrient circulation around the ocean would be vastly decreased. Coastal birds would also have no food, and no doubt most of them would go extinct, this in turn would lead to a disruption of coastal land and estuary ecosystems which depend on the birds. Everything in Earth's biosphere is connected to everything else, and if we want to avoid massive catastrophe as a species, we must keep this biosphere in balance. There is no other option south of moving humanity to orbital habitats or terraforming another planet, but for now, switching to renewable energy sources and cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a lot easier.
@@Ron_the_Skeptic I looked into this, the Lavoisier group is an organization "...formed by politicians and dominated by retired industrial businesspeople and engineers." (Wikipedia). They have been actively lobbying against and downplaying the effects of climate change for over a decade now so they can make more profit. I would not necessarily take a report of theirs as unbiased information.
Wow. I’m not even an American and this has left me deeply disturbed and sort of anxious. It’s amazing what strategies and tricks this woman and her organization use to make the truth seem like lies.
@@rolandhatton2668 says: "Yea truth is poison to liberals" == Do you believe the bible is a historical document? If you do, then the truth is a lie and lie is a truth.
@@rolandhatton2668 says: " more believable than climate change scam," == I didn't know that. Any sites that show evidence of bible stories? Fossil of Adam? Pieces of Noah's Ark etc? None. On the other hand, climate change has millions of evidence. climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
@@rolandhatton2668 says: "yea we both know we dont care what each other think so goodbye" == You are wrong. I do care about what you think. No matter how stupid you are, you still have a right to vote. That's a scary fact. Unanswered, Do you believe the bible is a historical document?
Temperature is a complicated matter. What time, what place, what reason, etc. I still have a dozen questions about what places and what reasons, and I think we need to be more aware of local and hemispheric climates. Anyway, I liked the well-reasoned approach in response to hysteria. Hopefully, our technology becomes exponentially more efficient and we create common sense regulations for industry and energy. EDIT: Thank you, Hank, for being one of the few voices on TH-cam with an interesting, middle-ground, and importantly, polite way of handling the issue of climate change. Props!
My worry is that "figure out a way to deal with this" for a lot of companies and especiallhy the richest companies is going to mean, "what minimal adjustments do we make to our new offices so that we can continue to sell our product and profit hugely even when everything is drowning and how do we plan to sell water at exuberent prices after most lakes have dried up" instead of "what changes can we make long term to minimise damage to the human race and prevent genocide". Oil companies have known about climate change and in response built floating oil rigs for alaska when the warm drilling season expands by 4 months and the rest of their rigs have drowned. This thinktank malarky is a microcosm of the worst and oldest and richest business interests fighting tooth and nail to do business as usual for as long as possible without consequence. Markets seem to not be the solution i can depend on.
global warming refers to the average temperature going up. Climate change refers to the effect of global warming. Also global warming increases the variance of temperatures, which means the weather can become more extreme on both ends of the spectrum, which means it can get colder than usual at times. Many people don’t understand this simply because they don’t know how to think about probabilities.
vinainor the effect of global warming is supposed to be global warming, not global cooling, sorry. They changed the name to climate change to fit the fact that rapid warming wasn't happening. Now they can blame everything on climate change. Nice scam huh ?
@@ricktd6891 You call it a scam, I call it your disability to read a graph. It's not rocket science if the line goes upwards, I thought anyone could understand that.
@@Sniperfuchs were you trying to say rising temperatures on the graph prove we have a problem and we're causing it ? Because we don't have a problem, so we can't be causing it because it doesn't exist. The Earth is historically cold right now over the long term. They don't want to go back too far in history ( 1000 years ) or you would realize it was warmer then... and warmer yet 2000 years ago, even warmer 3500 years ago and on and on. The warming we had since coming out of The Little Ice Age is completely natural and the trend might be reversing now that we're in a grand solar minimum. Temperatures have already set a 2 year cooling record since 2016 that goes back 100 years at least.
Very clever pundit. I might also add that at the time the USA had only announced its intention to withdraw from Paris, and it only withdrew this year. Thanks for tearing her a new one.
That's the problem with vids like this one, it attracts either the people with a similar outlook or the entire opposite view whose opinion wouldn't be changed if they were standing there, like King Canute, telling the sea to go back. You never seem to attract the middle ground majority who would perhaps say, "Thank you for this information, things are a little clearer now". This isn't just the fault of this vid, it is a general fault of the WWW. Different opinions only seem to attract comments from either supporters or denigrators, the people in the middle might be watching but you can never tell if you are achieving your objective of getting them to think about things.
@@cobraimploder There is no such thing as a "Climate Change Denier" - The climate has been changing since the Earth's atmosphere first formed, and anyone who denies that has an IQ that can be measured one your fingers. The only thing the people YOU try to claim deny that the climate changes are actually denying is that humans have a significant and catastrophic effect on the natural changes in the climate. Which EVEN THE IPPC REPORT said "We don't know" but the politicians wrote a "Summary" that said the exact opposite, the so-called scientists who came up with the infamous hockey-stick graphs fudged their data by substituting actual temperature measurements in place of their proxy data when their proxy data said there was a declining temperature when actual thermometers said it was warmer (AKA "Hide the Decline" in the data, AKA Climategate.) AGW is a scam. Always has been. Even the liberal BBC was forced to admit it when they tried to find actual climatologists who would corroborate the claims in Al Gore's movie. Rather than waste the money they had invested in their research, they made "The Great Global Warming Swindle" th-cam.com/video/oYhCQv5tNsQ/w-d-xo.html
@@RedwoodTheElf Saying that the climate has been changing since the Earth's atmosphere first formed is like telling a man struck with a deadly illness that he's been on his way to the grave since the day he was born. It's disingenuous and completely irrelevant. Also, show me that fabled "We don't know" from the IPPC report, I'll wait.
this was published in 2018, the temperature graph terminates at 2016, call me dumb, but that would be two years without temperature data? how does this disprove the claims of lower temperatures for the past two years? might want to deconstruct the deconstruction
Excellent video. I was surprised Hank made no commentary at all about the mechanisms of green house gasses causing warming. When the panelist dismissed human cause, she also inherently dismissed the physics of GHGs, and thereby completely avoided engaging empirical and reproducible scientific fact. This allowed her to continue arguing about areas of less definitive knowledge.
This definitely gave me some food for thought. I'll have to listen much more closely to what I'm hearing on the news and in interviews concerning climate change (and all other important political matters). It's easy to let vague well-crafted messaging convince us that the point made is entirely reasonable, but a critical approach to this messaging needs to be made to understand what's really being said.
She avoided the microaggression of calling it "global warming" and instead uses the term climate change throughout. THEN went on to make the statement about having the coldest winters in history, a reply commonly used to denounce global warming and the primary reason the term is avoided now. But this also allowed the listener to draw the term from memory and apply it. Something I was immediately guilty of.
But the classic was the "...but I don't know" in the form of "but I'm not a scientist" was great. Say that and you can throw soft facts around all day long.
The real reason "global warming" is not used anymore is because the warming has basically flat-lined. Can't be used for propaganda anymore. Climate Change is infinitely more flexible when trying to get people to shit their pants. Truth is, a little warming would be good for life on planet Earth. A little more CO2 would be good for planet Earth. There is already a significant increase in "green" vegetation on the planet due to more CO2. We currently live in an era that is a bit CO2 starved compared with the most vibrant times in the history of life on our planet.
@@Randsurfer the slight benefit for plants with having more CO2 does not in any way mitigate the problems we are causing by emitting such huge amounts of greenhouse gases. the globe is warming, but this causes complicated climate issues, not just a comprehensive warming. the global warming is causing climate change (along with the pollution caused by our energy and manufacturing industries)
I hear a lot of people make similar claims to this woman "well it was so cold this year, how could global warming be happening?" Regardless of whether or not that is true, it demonstrates a tremendous misunderstanding of how long term weather data is analyzed and understood. Yes, there will be fluctuations in weather patterns from year to year. That doesn't mean the average temperature isn't still trending upwards overall. I am concerned as a citizen of this world who values truth and objectivity above all else. Science has become heavily politicized and facts should never be up for political debate.
Climate is not "weather" = yet weather can be impacted by climate. Until these climate change denier moppets understand that concept = they will continue with inane analogies and their fundamental misunderstanding of climate change science.
I love the fact that you destruct rethorics. We need more of that in the world and on the internet. Especially since the broad masses just sucks up whatever appeals to them instead of being critical and well-informed. One thing I personally find interesting is that people blame China for CO2 emmissions, when in fact they are the biggest export of products to please western countries over-consumption. When talking about environment we need to look into complete life-cycle of products. How much impact does the things you own have on the environment? Our computers, phones, tvs, cars etc needs mining. Retrieving natural resources, which requires tons of energy. But we don't include into our own countries environmental impact. (it's china's fault, right?), but in fact, we're the ones demanding it. That is something no person in power talks about since our economy is built on capitalism. People, countries, economy etc are all a part of global warming. It's not like it needs to stop andgo back to being cave men but we do need to start to think about how to make our societies sustainable and climate neutral. How do we get there? Without pissing on the world we love.
Sadly the scientists over seeing the satellite data have been bullied into "correcting" it when no warming was found. The modified graphs literally look like the original ones tilted at an angle to portray warming.
@@EdmontonRails that's sounds about right. Like when they say 97% of scientists agree on climate change, there's one falsified paper they reference and a whole lot of grant money based on that claim. They also forget the Roman warming period which was warmer than today's temps and the little ice age. In the last 2000 years there's been about 3 colder than average periods and about 3 as warm or warmer periods that were considerable. That's just 2000 years, none of which were man made.
@ajspades19 the TLT data from 1979 to 2009. A few years ago the algorithms were changed and that resulting data show 140% increase in the last 50 years or something. Actual data showed what didn't fit the agenda so the data was changed. I can't believe we haven't baked to death yet. And why are millionaires still buying ocean front real estate? There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers published every year from all over the scientific community disproving it as well. Actually go beyond polititions and the media and do some research that doesn't include the IPCC report and you might learn a lot.
@ajspades19 I just gave you a 30 year report. You seriously want me to mention every scientist and every report by name and publication? I'm sorry you're incapable of free thought and can't find the info on your own. It must be tough being that lazy. I feel sorry for you. Just keep getting your info from cnn, you'll be fine in life.
The prior question is whether anything we can do anthropogenically can possibly change the inevitable movement towards the end of the current glacial cycle which will raise ocean levels another 200 ft., as in the previous comparable 5 glacial cycles. We cannot and the report from the UN released 3 weeks after the Paris Accords confirms this.
A woman hired to make scientists look dumb, a historian, a lobbyist, and two journalists walk onto a stage. And they say to each other “wait we can’t expect to have a debate about climate change that actually means anything without a scientist, or at the very least someone well versed in the topic.”
She completely confused me with the cold winters thing because where I live the winters have been significantly snowier, and I know climate change is causing wet places to get wetter, so I have amused that it was places snowier as well but I never think about the temperature, and it seems like it is not colder anyways it is just by me. Idk but that part of her argument caught me by surprise
Yes winters are getting colder but the summers are also getting hotter. Summers are increasing in temp faster than winters are decreasing in temp such that the average world temp is increasing.
Which one do we listen to?: "Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” Nov. 2, 1922. “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” -July 5, 1989 “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” 2007
My biggest concern abt climate change at this point is like, what does it mean to be a kid growing up without air quality? With natural disasters at every turn, more sickness? I see how the pandemic alone effected me and especially younger children and I can only imagine how absolutely traumatic and brain rotting it would be to grow up when outside is so much more dangerous
Despite how meticulously worded it was, alarm bells should always start ringing as soon as extremism and distancing is implied. Emotional language needs to be kept out of this debate and any others like it; no, "hysterical", "we", "them", alienation ("I'm not a scientist"), implied agendas or confusingly worded statements. If you make a claim show the data and explain why you reached your conclusion. Every piece of science has some percentage error associated with it and i believe if you are making any claims in such a public setting either you or someome else in the panel should be required to point out the limitations of your data.
Biggest challenge humanity has ever faced is a bit of an overstatement. I mean, we almost went extinct that one time. Not to say climate change isn’t the biggest challenge we face now, it is.
Pretty hard to find a republican who isn't a trump voter. You need the exact same kind of mindset that enables climate change deniers to ever put your trust in an anti-vaccer president.
I have gone from fully believing humans were the main cause of climate change to being unsure. Obviously the polar vortex isn't really evidence of anything. Could be a short term (climate time scale here) fluke or it could be something more. I often get called a "denier" when I argue my points on this topic, which I won't waste my time doing here. I'd just like to set the record straight. Y'all often say "denier" as if it's some evil scheme or that the person is just intellectually inferior to yourself. That is obviously not the case. The truth is almost everyone who you would classify as a "denier" believes that humans have an impact on the climate. The question that myself and others like me try to get an answer to is "How much of an impact do we really have"? And I've personally read many research papers over the years trying to find an answer to this very question. I've debated and discussed with people who believe the same and different. In fact, I was completely on the side of humans being the main cause until I had a debate and was, afterwards, given a few research papers to review. They didn't disprove anthropogenic global warming, but they did call many things into question. It's very interesting to go from one side to the other for a specifically informational reason. I have no dogs in this race. It interests me purely for a scientific understanding of the topic. Both sides of this debate tend to twist facts and state possibilities as stone-carved. You should not do this. If you want to have someone listen to you, here's an idea... Don't just assume they're an idiot. Don't disregard them, simply because you disagree. Understand that just because you believe you're right, doesn't mean you are. Just like the 97% lie. Firstly, it wouldn't matter if 97% of scientists agreed that humans were the main cause of global warming. Majority means nothing in science. If we fall into that stance, little progress will ever be made. Secondly, it was mostly bullshit anyway. However, to this day, when I discuss this topic with someone, they will bring this point up and I have to show them why the 97% isn't real. My questions that science has failed to answer at this point are "What impact do humans have on the climate?" and "What can we cost effectively do about it?" Climate models are unimpressive and still don't factor in clouds satisfactorily. Just like some cloud nucleation research has shown that cloud coverage in the past has been very likely underestimated, which changes a lot about our understanding of climate change. There are a lot of things that raise questions without good answers right now. Most of us "deniers" aren't "deniers" at all. We just don't agree that humans are most certainly the main cause of the climate change we see. Humans definitely have an impact, but when the costs of "fixing" it are so high right now, understanding how big that impact is, is very important. I've made the mistake of debating in youtube comment sections before and I will not do that here. If you really want to have a discussion with me, I'm all for it. However, I'm starting a new job and I've got a lot on my plate right now. So, if you do want to discuss this topic with me, send me a message and we can schedule a time and place to have a voice chat to discuss this. I hope this helps some understand that the other side isn't just a bunch of idiots. Some of us are very intelligent. We're skeptical and we want some real hard evidence. That's all.
Well said, Chrispm84! You wrote: "Firstly, it wouldn't matter if 97% of scientists agreed that humans were the main cause of global warming. Majority means nothing in science." So much chaos and confusion all over the web and the airwaves, it is nice to see your clarity and accuracy. It would be nice if scientists themselves would remember the _Nature of Science_ when speaking to the media, and clarify when they are stepping outside of their own field in order to express a personal belief or opinion.
The US may not burn high suffer coal anymore, but we sure as hell are selling it to other countries. So don't blame European counties for burning our coal.
The "I'm not a scientist, I look at this a citizen" line is essentially constructed to appeal to people who aren't sure about the scientific consensus. It's basically a way of signalling to those people (the "swing voters", if you will) that she is "just like them", and to get them to trust the next things that she says (especially including the doubt on climate change's anthropogenic nature).
No evidence whatsoever, it's just a tactic to constrain China's development
I think what was really dangerous about what she said is her general demeanour. She's knitting this warm blanket for anybody listening to wrap themselves in. "Everything is fine. Nothing to worrying about. Take a nap. I got this."
They also dressed her up like an upper class artsy liberal, which I don't think was unintentional
"we don't need to be hysterical"
"Blasphemy!"
🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@lukesymmonsyes, that's all she said
"We're not talking about it because it's not part of the agenda" has proven to be (in the years following this video) one of the most staggeringly effective platforms America has ever seen.
Not being part of the agenda is one of the largest agendas in US politics it seems
6:10 Biggest two-year drop refers to comparing Feb 2016 to Feb 2018. Feb 2016 was the hottest February and the second largest monthly anomaly on record. Feb 2018 was only the ninth warmest Feb out of 138 years. I would have to questions how well practiced she really was because the "two coldest years" seems like a tongue slip which she tried to correct to "largest two year drop". The coldest two year period in the last 100 years would be 1923-24. Coldest individual years would be 1924 and 1929 according to NOAA.
I don't think that it was necessarily an unintentional slip of the tongue. What you take away is the superlative 'coldest' together with the final statement of 100 years which sounds comforting.
That’s really because the record breaking heat we had in 2016 was partially caused by El Niño. But early 2018, two years later, we in the midst of a La Niña. And yet was still in the top 10 (at the time) for warmest Februarys on record globally.
Also interestingly enough looking at the last 100 years (1917-2018 as that’s when this clip aired), like the women claimed in the video, the four warmest two year periods were 2016-2017, 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2014-2015. So looks like as of the clip aired, 2017-2018 was among the *hottest* two year period on record both since the 1980s and the “last 100 years”.
Source: NCEI NOAA
This is brilliant. There should be a channel devoted to this kind of line by line analysis of political pundits and public figures.
If you need help with that channel let me know. Sounds challenging but let's not get hysterical. We'll just mitigate the problems as they arise.
Look at young Turks, secular talk, the humanist report, etc. But more are always welcome 😊
Sometimes I wonder if my education excluded rhetoric by design. Simon Lancaster is brilliant. He's worth an evening of interwebs wandering.
WheezyWaiter yes please!
I think there is. I think it was part of the PBS family. I'm aware of it, but since I don't like politics, I've never sought it out.
I think their pitch was teaching you how to navigate and critically examine all the media bullshit, fake news and punditry that politics spews at us.
I would absolutely watch this if you and Hank made it. I am aware of all the sites out there that do this already, but you guys have an audience already and would make it interesting :)
www.politifact.com/
www.factcheck.org/
www.npr.org/sections/politics-fact-check
Thanks to everyone who helped tease out the point regarding the "lowest temperature / largest drop" comment that the pundit made. Here it is: Between 2016 and 2018, average global temperature dropped 0.5 degrees C, which is the largest drop we've ever seen for that particular time period. This is partially due to the fact that 2016 was a massive outlier. And saying "the largest drop ever" is true, but it makes it sound like it's the lowest temperature in 100 years, which it is not. In fact, 2018's massively lower temperature would still have been a record high in /2004/.
Also, there are lots of higher one-year drops, and lots of higher 3 year drops...but if you look at 2 year drops it's the highest. There's also a 5 month period that's the largest drop for a 5 month period and...yeah...you can find little things like this, and we're not great (as a species) at understanding true long-term trends. And now 2018 looks like it might be the fourth hottest year ever, despite the fact that it started off relatively cool.
The point she wants to make is "No one talks about it when temperature drops like they do when temperatures are higher than ever" but that's at least in part because, when temperatures drop they're still quite high, whereas when they spike, they're the highest we've ever seen.
+
Nice, I am not the only one that pays attention to it... after a number of people saying how cold it was and I was like ah... it was colder in the 90's, at one point it snowed in a place it does not snow ever(baring the point that it is only a fine line that makes it have the right conditions.).
NO no no, its a word salad. Its intention is for it not to mean anything. You cannot argue the point she is make because there is no point. She says three things in sequence all wrong so she cannot be picked up on any of them. It deliberately confuses, but is sounds bad so it must be bad. Also it sounds specific and unless you are able to paint accurate word pictures like your graph, but in words, then you will be able to countenance her 'facts'.
To give you a brief look at the theory this argument is based upon you need to understand that it is all about aesthetics. This has its political origin for the conservative branch of thinking with the book by george lakoff the political mind. This book some how got swept up into the conservative movement and as conservatives have slowly drop their principles, morals and ethical base the notion of aesthetics have taken a larger role, interesting side is that the Nazis where highly aesthetically orientated. The psychology of the aesthetic dominance of conservative thinking is fascinating and highly amusing and deeply disturbing.
+
People forget about the drought when the floods arrive.
These people put an astonishing amount of effort into lying to people.
you can't parody these people - jimmy dore
there is an astonishing amount of money involved in energy production and everything that goes with it.
Kind of like when someone made a movie on global warming and Antarctica is still here today.
So do you. Argue your case from facts......not sneering
@@mistercut8331 Pardon?
It's sad that moderators on programs like this no longer seem to think that challenging misleading or false claims are part of their job. They seem to think that they should let each side express their opinion, to be fair, even if the guests lie. They've let lying become normalized.
They most likely aren't allowed to, because those people spouting nonsense were placed there by their employers.
@@_ch1pset Or the people who are attracted to the show personally like a few of the people brought in enough that the people called into the show can privately threaten to not show up and thus reduce the ability of the show to operate.
She looks like an SNL character. Costume, glasses, mannerisms, everything.
dangerouslytalented yea, I mean who wears cheetah?
So what do you look like?????
Phredde Phrogge I look avuncular as fuck.
All coal is dirty, ma'am. Some coal is just worse than others. BTW- I have worked in coal mines and power plants since 1979. And in nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, municipal refuse and petroleum facilities since the 1970's. Anthropogenic climate change is real. We can argue over levels of impact by different industries and different chemicals but the facts are out there.
@@bridgetmcgann7502
It's amazing how the coal lobbies took an environmentalist phrase "dirty coal" and turned it on its head. Fantastic rhetoric. Horrifyingly effective.
@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 This. Democrats (for now the progressives) frankly, suck at rhetoric. I am one, I should know.... blrgh.
you nailed, an apeal to authority attack and ma,am used as a subtle personal atach on her lack of credibility that she brags about. verbal jujitsu.
@@FroehligGirlz See, the difficult thing about debate as a progressive is that the burden of proof is on the ones who want things to change. It's hard convincing people that the socioeconomic benefits of safe and easy access to abortion makes it worthwhile, or that our consumerist industry will make the Earth uninhabitable if it isn't reformed. It's easy to say that abortion is murder so we should keep it illegal, and that climate change is a lie.
Based on your career @brian garrow are you a geologist by any chance?
She carefully makes her sentences very ambiguous in order to always have a way to support her views if they are questioned by twisting facts. It’s troubling to see this type of manipulation happening considering that many individuals in different populations such as the elderly population might easily agree with her in the end. The manipulation really preys on many groups in the general public by appearing to be part of US or the general public or “citizens” not a small group.
Great vid as always.
Edit: I did not mean all individuals who are part the elderly population ( I did not mean to generalize any group but I was just giving an example).
Red Rose I'm so stuck on Hank pointing out that these panelists are here to explain what is happening--and then this woman is here to influence. Point that out like there's no tomorrow. Call out their dishonesty. Call out every last bit of their dishonesty, and make those appeals to the audience.
This woman knows she is dishonest. You can't change her mind. But you can stop her audience from falling to her calls for division. Make her audience aware that they are being very carefully manipulated in dishonest ways.
MarkThePage I agree with you on the need for the other panelists to challenge her ideas. The issue arises when if they question her then her audience would thing that it was part of the “agenda”. I think this all comes down to we need more science communicators in order for the public to not feel alienated.
That's why the oil companies pay her a couple million a year
It's unfortunate, because I've been raised to think "don't believe everything you read on the internet, always confirm sources, etc." I have an inherent lack of trust in what others tell me and think it's important to double-check. But a lot of people don't think about that. They think it was on a panel, so it must be true. The person who said these things seems confident and assertive, so she must know her stuff! Scary.
+Red Rose Hey, less of the ageism please. Some of us may be elderly but we still understand what is going on and the threat we are all under. It's not just temperatures over 35C for 24 hours, rising sea levels and increased severity of storms that will kill either. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is reducing the pH of our oceans, that is where half our atmospheric oxygen comes from, once the phytoplankton can no longer thrive because of increasing acidity and high water temperature we may find it a little tough to breath (the only reason the O2 partial pressure has not fallen more than it has already is because warmer seas cannot retain so much dissolved oxygen so oxygen is being evolved from those waters which mostly makes up for the falling phytoplankton contribution, that can't last forever).
The problem is the media’s focus on _”fairness”_ that requires them to represent both sides of an issue regardless of whether both sides are equally valid. Climate deniers should get coverage equal to their evidence to refute the scientific literature...
Actually the real issue here is the rise of cable television coupled with the advent of the internet. In the time before both = pseudo-scientific claims such as climate change deniers posit would never have seen the light of day - save for perhaps in the entertainment media. That of course is because such tenuously linked and/or claims originating from entities tied to industry would never have passed journalistic vetting to be seen on-air.
Today however that dynamic has been upended if you will. The rise of cable channels has resulted in the creation of "niche media" whereby channels now appeal specifically to niche audiences and as such are not hampered by things such as a lack of verifiable science. For them = ratings is all that matters so as to generate $$$$. Meanwhile the internet also lacks any type of regulatory oversight so that anyone can claim anything no matter how nonsensical and it can reach millions of people who often lack the ability to vet what is asserted.
So I agree with your premise. Hitchens' Razor should apply here. Either climate change deniers provide acceptable peer-review scientific evidence subject to the same methodological rigors as normal climate science and absent any ideological or economic bias = or their assertions should be dismissed out of hand as just so much unsubstantiated speculation/conjecture. Have a nice day.
Vary Olla - we do have to blame our education system for failing these folk... fundamental concepts just whoosh over their heads... and you’re right, the internet allows what used to be one persons mental illness spread like Measles.
Awesome pfp man
It always irritates me when they have a discussion about climate change and they don't invite a climatologist to contribute - an actual specialist in the subject.
Instead it's 'and here's Mary from the 'American Heartland Patriot Sharp Shooter Hoorah Institute' to give her considered opinion and no, we won't be mentioning that this institute did receive a million dollars from Exxon last year for some reason (it's a mystery why - we just don't know!).
'So Mary? What do you think?'
'Well, I'm not a scientist... '
That's Hank's 1st point, though. We shouldn't dismiss people's opinions just because they're not scientists. Psychology shows that this kind of attitude turns people off if you want to persuade them, and tricks in messaging & affecting public opinion is what this video is all about.
@Rory Forbes Her role is to delay action on this global issue using the same methods used to blow smoke up people's asses about the link between cigarettes and cancer. I have no patience left with American think-tanks who are thinly disguised business lobby groups.
@Rory Forbes 'I was a scientist in a related field'. And how long ago was that Rory? Ever heard the term 'gone emeritus'? Because that's how you come across. It's plain that the scientific community has long moved on from whatever contrarian position you may hold. I want that better reflected in the media coverage. It took time to overcome the tobacco industry's media bullshit, it's the same process here.
@Rory Forbes 'It's the science community trying to get the word out...' no, it isn't - there's a very small number of contrarian scientists - people such as Judith Curry, but the vast majority of the scientific community is alarmed at what's happening and have been saying so now for decades. You've got it exactly ass-backwards, grandpa.
@Rory Forbes Wow - you actually trotted out the Oregon Petition. Tell me, have they twigged that Posh Spice and Hawkeye aren't scientists yet? Have they stopped using cover letters formatted to look like they're from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (who then publicly disavowed them)? And this lot is better than Cook?
But if you don't like Cook's survey, then how about subsequent surveys by Powell, 2013 and Verheggen et al., 2014 which support Cook's findings and your assertion not at all? Again, just ass-backwards grand-pa!
And there's no doubt Richard Lindzen had a distinguished career but he's been retired for years now and was known as being contrarian in nature. He contributed to a couple of the IPCC chapters but I can't find any evidence he or Curry 'held top positions'. So don't over egg the pudding grand-pa. BTW: these two are probably the best the denier crowd have to offer as actual scientists (no, Monckton doesn't count - don't even try).
My first reaction was “of course we should be hysterical!” as well. This really is a beautiful talking point, so well crafted. Also, Hank’s whole response was pretty masterful as well.
Yeah, I commend her for stepping up to challenge Pletka when nobody else was. I think Hank was a little harsh on her for "using her word," meaning she gave some of the power to Pletka for staying in her framing of the argument. I felt like she took it and redefined it correctly on her own terms, plus, she didn't have the benefit of a day of reflection before responding. It's the only sticking point I have on Hank's analysis.
"It's neat! But it's terrible!" That's a great summary of all the crazy hyper-crafted talking points coming out against climate change.
“After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great.”
The way she carefully crafts her language to imply something false without technically saying it outright... is neat, in a way. But after the segment shown here, I feel like I need a shower. Maybe it was slick, but it was *oily*. It shows she was clearly acting in bad faith, and isn't even worth talking to. I feel bad for people who aren't able to perceive how deceptive it was, who don't recognize the tricks she used or how dirty those tricks are.
North America’s emissions mean nothing in light of a single volcanic discharge.
Plastic chocking out photosynthesis in the ocean, heavy metals raining down and filling our food with poison should be our concerns.
Keep fighting while until we all go to sleep.
This is very good, Hank. Some good rational analysis without hate. We need more of that.
+
The argument was weak. His deconstruction, not big deal. Jordan Peterson has it accurate: th-cam.com/video/pBbvehbomrY/w-d-xo.html
Without hate? *Privileged white man shits on woman daring to share her opinion*
It’s a literal mansplaining video. He even calls her hysterical! Disgusting.
@@OurCognitiveSurplus
Isn't mansplaining supposedly a condescending tone taken against someone because they're a woman whilst explaining a concept, (typically a rudimentary one).
I didn't personally see it. In no way did he seem to be attacking her, but he was attacking the argument. I didn't catch him calling her hysterical btw. However, it should be noted that she called people hysterical as well.
Labeling someone as hysterical can be "disgusting", given proper context.
I don't think the lady used it in a crude way, just a very nefarious way.
He argued the futility of fighting global warming and the false superiority of those who claim to fight him.
Do i think his tone was proper? No, he's a bit to combative for my taste. However i don't see anything wrong with his argument aside from that.
I disagree with him, but that's not relevant.
@@Deserrto 2 different clips, 2 different responses, 2 different messages.
Hank's deconstruction is important in that it shows how language and stats can be manipulated to further a narrative.
This is an important skill to have to decipher truth from misdirection (won't call it lies per se, but one could argue that they are).
There's a special place in hell for people who knowingly mislead the masses like that. The ironic thing is they don't even realize that their actions made hell several degrees hotter than it otherwise would have been.
Right next to the people who didn't worship the fsm ;^)
I'm an atheist but when I see people like her I really hope I'm wrong.
BEM684 I take comfort knowing that her grandchildren will suffer because of her shortsighted choice to put immediate profit ahead of long-term success.
@@jpe1 the problem is that she's making enough money to mitigate the effects for her descendants. Most people don't.
Specifically, the 8th circle.
this is a rhetorical analysis 9/9 on your essay
5 on the AP Exam
@@skylerwitherspoon considering that rhetorical analysis is one of the lang essay categories, I'd hazard a yes
I cannot like this video enough. This is honest, enlightening, informative, and important. This needs to be seen by as many people as possible...
Really, Well that first graph is not correct because its NASA adjusted data , maybe u should look at this vid to understand ............ th-cam.com/video/YRXDOAhjBn8/w-d-xo.html
Being a physicist with a PhD and 5+ years of working experience nothing pisses me off than people with zero knowledge about science trying to argue science or discredit scientists. Instead, go and argue with your doctor about your health, or argue with your lawyer about your legal case or at least argue with your plumber and teach him how to plumb. I blame media for giving these maniacs air time for their bs.
I'm a PhD mathematician with a geology degree. I'm a few courses shy of degrees in physics and chemistry, but I had to get on with my life. Your appeal to authority doesn't impress me. Even the most expert of climate scientists are working with pretty soft data, and pretty weak theories, starting with the presumption that man-generated CO2 controls climate. It's a ridiculous proposition.
You can make a good case for TRACKING CO2 as an indicator of ALL emissions, but in itself, CO2 is a tiny part of the whole picture. About the only guaranteed way I know of to put the planet on a downward trend with regard to pollution in general (which is a serious issue, and CO2 is just a teensy little piece of it) is PROSPERITY, which is the only non-catastrophic means by which populations seem to stabilize and go down of their own accord.
Now if we could just get over the need to GROW every year, to keep the Keynesian Ponzi Scheme afloat, maybe we could EVOLVE to something better. But as soon as Europe and the USA got a handle on their OWN population growth, they look to IMPORT people who have large families, to prop up our Ponzi scheme! Instead, we should export our filthy fossil-fuel-based way of living to OTHER countries! Allow them to become prosperous, and the population pressure on the ecosystem reduces ITSELF over time, without use of force or violence on ANYone.
And for all your expertise in physics, what is your expertise in climate science? What do you know about how the data are collected, sanitized, and presented for general consumption, mostly by people with a political axe to grind, or who know the BIG MONEY and HIGH STATUS go with toe-ing the CO2-is-the-great-Satan line?
I see plenty of evidence that suggests they're cooking the numbers to suit their ends. That doesn't mean I'm not aware - as a geologist - of the evidence of climate change in the past. But I'm also a student of history (another degree I'm about 3 courses shy of earning), and a bit of a geek on the science of government and self-rule. And what I see coming out on the POLICY side is mostly nonsense, and detrimental to long-term well-being of humanity.
But there's always someone with a good, scientific reason to become the very kind of fascist state that we fought WW II to destroy. Look at the policy proposals and think about the real effect of those policies. They all lead to authoritarian rule and a destruction of much that is good. I don't trust ANYone who seeks to make climate change their CAREER, other than legit meteorologists and climatologists, and I want to know who's paying their bills.
@@harrymills2770 best comment on this page, 👍👍👍
So non-nuclear-physicists should not argue against nuclear physicists? And we should blame the media for giving laymans airtime against nuclear, fracking...? I think you see your own bs.
Harry Mills did you just state appeal to authority and follow it with discrediting an argument with appeal to authority? What type of mathematics do you have a PhD in? just applied? Sure as hell wasnt Climatology or Probability Theory. I had to spend a year doing climate change research in Advanced Linear Regression Analysis as well as a survey class in Analysis of Temperature Change Models and the correlation of climate change caused by human fossil fuels, taking multivariable elements into consideration from several global weather data sources is above 0.92. You call that weak? Okay dude. I think you should check your own appeal to authority. I for some reason call BS on you even having a degree. Nobody with 2 PhDs would contradict in this manner.
@@plutarchheavensbee3483 Stop the "correlation" approach to analysis........even 15 yr olds doing school science know that you must define your 2 variables.....in this case CO2 causes T increase. Plot CO2 on the x-axis and T on the y-axis.....show the relationship!!! NASA data that gives lovely hockeystick curves for T vs time and CO2 vs time gives a nearly horizontal straight line for T vs CO2 (gradient 0.02 F/ppm).......shows what rubbish you have been indulging in trying desperately to promote a catastrophic scenario. Sort out your dodgy data......stop retrospectively "correcting" historical data.....stop pretending proxy data from tree rings etc etc has the same accuracy as satellite data which in turn is different to land or balloon based measured values......and the "estimated" data from most of the ocean and big chunks of desert land areas etc etc. Fancy maths cannot compensate for dodgy data.....GIGO
I immediately took the “I’m not a scientist” line as a tactic to engender the speaker to the base that would already agree with them or be swayable. It happens to have the nice benefit Hank mentioned - the people who disagree with the whole statement and use it as a “gotcha” are helping spread this idea.
Public deception on such a critical issue really does constitute a crime against humanity. It is amazing what people will do for money.
@harvey, yeah. Also many people forget, money is not real. It's man made. I don't recall seeing Star Trek ship crew paying for anything.... Some day we will get there and get along. 😂
@@ABUNDANCEandBEYONDATHLETE Money is real ive got some of it in my wallet. Star trek though... I dunno i think it might be fake.
@@gytux0258
The value we give the money is what's fake. It's completely depedent on believe. As long as enough people believe that the number on their bank accounts actually has that value, then the system will work. Money is an agreement. I give you this piece of paper and you give me that computer.
But just google what happens if enough people were to withdraw all their money from a bank at the same time.
And it's of course obvious that we don't need money. What we really need is a healthy planet that has the capability of producing enough food for us.
@@gytux0258 learn the money system then you will understand the context. Money isn't bad. Monopoly money is just as real as the money you have in the wallet. When that natural disasters strikes, your money during that emergency is worthless as you're running out escaping for your life. Be well my friend, have a great day.
@@stauffap Ill give you 10 bucks to believe that money has value.
Call "Thinktanks" by the title they earn: propaganda machines.
Yes and there are think-tanks on both sides of the debate. IPCC could be likewise be called a think tank by your definition.
@@benatalQemy CLUB OF ROME
@@benatalQemy A comission tasked with assessing the risk of climate is the same as a group paid for nothing more than making a message palitable?
Your claim seems lacking. Check the IPCC, sure as shit isn't a left wing think tank, son.
Well that first graph is NOT correct , its a NASA " Adjusted " one, u need to look at the raw data . How do I know that ? Its because the 1930's were much hotter than today and NASA deletes the previous graphs . NOAA on the other hand does the same and u can look up previous ones .......... th-cam.com/video/WKD6hph7z6g/w-d-xo.html ...................... Actually this one is better ............. th-cam.com/video/YRXDOAhjBn8/w-d-xo.html
Hank is a very, very smart man and I'm glad that he uses his intellect to explain complex things to us. Thanks Hank!
How many people will end up hearing what that woman said on that panel? And how many people will end up hearing what you said in this video? Hank, you say it yourself: You have power. Please use it more.
The media should stop having these people on panels because it makes them seem legit. It's like having neo-nazis that on a panel with a liberal. It's not actually helpful even if the neo-nazis looks like an idiot, because they are still at the same level in the discussion as a liberal.
@@Leftistattheparty
Right. It would be worth at least trying to ignore them into oblivion.
+
Take Hank and multiply by everybody else who has his message. I think you'll find that it is much bigger than Meet The Press, which is a creature of corporate owners and sponsors and neo-liberal bosses. Meet The Press has had a corporate-statist-fascist tilt for decades - all in the name of objectivity.
Mass media is no longer the major networks. Mass media is a loose consortium of middle-class people talking to a few hundreds or thousands - and in rare cases MILLIONS - of viewers, who support them, DIRECTLY, without corporate sponsorship or censorship. Mass media is morphing into a product that consumers CHOOSE to purchase, like any other product, and the corporate "If you want to see THAT, you must watch THIS" format is going the way of the Dodo Bird.
Why watch the networks, when a Joe Rogen or a Jimmy Dore can put on an un-cut, open-ended CONVERSATION. Meet The Press is about the closest thing that the networks can come up with, and it sucks, by comparison. I don't believe ANYone 100%, and I embrace the diversity of voices that the champions of so-called diversity would silence.
As a former geologist, I find it very funny how people jump to conclusions about climate and our role in climate. About the only thing we've found that reduces carbon footprint is PROSPERITY. Don't like how Americans pollute? Well, did you notice that once people reach a certain level of prosperity that they start having fewer children, voluntarily? You want to fix the global climate (Good luck with that. My guess is it's beyond us, and that we are fleas on a thin-skinned dog, thinking we ARE the dog.)? Make (allow) people to be prosperous, and population slowly drops, naturally, over time.
How do you get prosperous? Have a limited government that protects persons and property and get the hell out of people's way. Like all elitists, you folks bemoan the fact that others aren't as enlightened as YOU, which justifies your doing any wack thing you feel is necessary, (willfully) unaware of the (unintended) consequences of your use of force, and the long-term counter-forces you create EVERY TIME.
Liberals are like farmers who figure if a little bug spray helps, then a TON of bug spray will help a TON. So seeking a bug-free crop, they poison their own crop.
When she says that she's not a scientist, she's a citizen, she is not saying it as a disclaimer. She is deliberately creating the impression that scientists that are not citizens, that they are some strange, set apart "other," with an "agenda" that means "we" can't talk about things. She is a mastermind of manipulation - she isn't just trying to convince anyone that climate change isn't a problem, she is working to create a more anti-science, anti-intellectual climate over all.
When she says some super-confusing, inconsistent nonsense about the two coldest years, it's not because *she's* confused or because she believes a word of what she is saying. She isn't someone who disagrees , she is not speaking in goos faith from a real set of ideas she actually holds, so it is impossible to address her bizarre statement in good faith. She isn't stating what she believes or understands, she is just saying words which she knows will create a desired effect in some of her listeners, the effect of being confused and not knowing what or whom to believe.
Considering that scientists were caught colluding to lie about global temperatures with their own memos and documents when the global warming hysteria first started and that scientists backed up Al Gore's assessment of global warming because of personal politics what I get from "I am not a scientist.", is that she doesn't have a paid for agenda like the global warning scientists did. I find it COMPLETELY disingenuous that the clip started before she was introduced. If she was introduced as someone from a think tank then everyone should know she has an agenda of her own. If you don't know that think tanks are biased then you should be working on getting informed instead of agreeing with anyone including someone who believes what you do.
@Molly McEnerney: Exactly! Her target audience is the people who would respond "Hey, I'm not a scientist either! This woman speaks my kind of truth."
@Narrative Knight: do you mean the "Climategate" e-mails? Sensationalised and taken out of context; see:
www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
@@thromboid that is what I meant. The 'independent' investigators are all climate change activists. If these investigators actually believed the reports they made then we would still be talking about 'global warming' instead of 'climate change'. Not even the far left now will call it 'global warming'. If all of those studies about 'global warming' were accurate and reliable then the conversation would not have changed. The left doesn't let go of an argument unless the argument is already over. This argument is still going full steam ahead, the only reason the left switched to 'climate change' is because they want everyone to forget that all of the persons screaming about global warming are the same ones who abandoned global warming. The scientists protecting their grants from leftist governments got busted and so they offered climate change to their governments as a replacement which would allow the same policies to be touted as necessary. Governments want more money so scientists create a reason for needing it which means the government will kick back some of that money to the scientists. That is why everyone on the left is running around in circles trying to create hysteria so no one will have the courage to stand up to them. They are trying to 'save the planet' so standing up to them when statistics can be used to 'prove' almost anything takes a huge amount of courage and the ability to survive political backlash. Global warming or climate change, no matter what you want to call it, is not an existential threat. When renewable resources become reliable and cheap then all use of fossil fuels will end. This will happen long before human activity can cause damage to the planet that we cannot fix. This is what most people believe because it is what they see happening. Renewable resources will eventually replace fossil fuels which will have more and more of its bi-products cleaned up while we wait for that to happen. If you want to 'save the planet' then create a device that you can attach to mufflers which captures all emissions for recycling and sale to the companies that need it.
It would have been entirely appropriate to keep calling it global warming, because that's what it is. However, that can lead to confusion between a net warming (such as we've seen in the last century or so) and the natural retention of heat that balanced out the planet's heat losses into space. It's the same phenomenon - we've just tilted the balance. Also, because the planet doesn't warm uniformly (and the models are quite consistent with this), there were silly arguments like "but it snowed here last week - so much for global warming!". You might as well say "World hunger?! But I just had lunch!" Specifying the human-caused component by adding "anthropogenic" is also appropriate, now that we can accurately identify that part of the warming (by measuring isotope fractions in the atmosphere).
Guess who else has a cosy financial relationship with governments: industries like energy and agriculture. I trust you're as critical of their role in influencing policy. And it's not just burning fossil fuels: deforestation is a major contributor to AGW because trees act much like the tailpipe CO2 mops you mention. Climate scientists have generally been careful to avoid policy statements, and stick to their job of determining what is actually true - what you do with that knowledge of reality is where politics steps in. Trying to turn the science of an issue into a political one is a slippery strategy.
More fundamentally, why is being paid for a job such a "smoking gun" for corruption? By the same argument, no professional is trustworthy. Is cancer just a scam invented by oncologists? Oil changes a giant hoax by greedy car mechanics?
Thank you, Hank, for taking the time and effort to deconstruct this and debunk it. Also, I'd like to thank you for sharing your ability as a clear thinking person to clear this up for others.
+
She's saying a lot without saying much at all. It's practically just like legalese- it sounds important and educated, but doesn't make a lot of sense once you actually dissect it. To those who haven't educated themselves and reached their own conclusions based on data and facts, this can sound like she knows what she's saying, but to those who have, you know it's propaganda. She's just someone using words in a very particular way to convince other people to get on board with this group's agenda. The unfortunate problem is that there's a lot of people out there who form their opinions, beliefs, and ideas based on what other people have to say about the data and facts instead of the data and facts themselves. Therefor, this tatic has, and always will be, an effective one.
Emily M. - Jordan Peterson in a nutshell
She's hitting around the edges of the FACT that ALL climate predictions using the "consensus" models that ASSUME CO2 is driving climate, have over-estimated temperature increase EVERY TIME. The models suck. Everybody knows it, except the hard-core, left-wing deniers, living in echo chambers, and latching on only to the facts - whether legitimate or cooked-up by "experts" - that support their pre-determined opinions.
I'm not saying that kooks on the right don't do the same thing. I'm just saying that people who look to government to solve all problems are only too happy to embrace whatever crazy (and ineffective) policies the elites cook up, without considering the long-term consequences. This is classic mafia-style extortion, and liberals swallow it, whole, and ignore or dismiss any and all facts that show their theories are not very good.
BuT iTs CoLd OuTsIdE
"mUh ClimAte ChanGe is NoT sAme aS WeaTHEr. AlsO. FoRest fiRes TornAdoES causED By MUh ClimAte ChanGE. JusT not When BaD orangE maN sayS it."
In which Hank does a great science commentary
On which Daniel leaves a comment
I absolutely love how you broke this piece of this segment down.
When anthropogenic literally means: human caused climate change...
I think the point of bringing up that word choice was that "anthropogenic" sounds a lot more scientific than "man-made" and that makes the speaker look like she's well acquainted with the topic.
Einomies yeah! Totally agree, pretty sure she had motives behind why she worded the whole speech in such a way.
Great video! In the Netherlands we just had a record warm, dry summer. Although regular people enjoyed the weather, it was very bad for the farmers and their crops. The water levels have sunk so low that it could take decades to reach the normal height, and that is assuming rain will fall as normal, but it just as well might not.
I wish people actually would get hysterical about climate change. We need to hit the emergency brakes hard and fast, regardless of the economic consequences. What use is money if food is scarce? Only the very rich will survive. I guess that's why Trump doesn't care.
Thank you, Hank, for taking the time to explain how these people manipulate the truth for their own gain. More people need to think harder about what they hear on the television or on social media because even if something sounds convincing, it doesn't make it true.
Ironic how she's implying that there is an agenda. Well there is. And she's promoting this agenda. And the media just gave her a platform.
Oliver Siegel, Just what do you think Agenda 2030 is? Look it up.
@@touchtoomuch1000 why don't you tell me? Is it the fossil fuel industry trying to push back a carbon tax until 2030?
Oliver Siegel, climate scientists who go along with the man made climate change theory get billions of dollars in international funding. Those who disagree get nothing. Just how much money do you supose scientist who disagree get from fossil fuel companies? The entire Heritage Foundation has recieved $780,000 from EXXON MOBILE since 1998 and $1.7 million from Koch brothers. Agenda 2030 is a push for global socialism. The United States is 2nd only to China in wind energy and 4th in solar power. None of which would exist without fossil fuels. There is nothing extraordinary going on with the climate. If you believe that we have just 12 years or the world is done for, you are a fool.
@@touchtoomuch1000 So you're telling me "they" have BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at their disposal, and "they" use it to create FAKE SCIENCE about climate change, so that "they" can manipulate the public and make them believe something that is actually not true, so that eventually "they" can push GLOBAL SOCIALISM?
Damn, I guess we're really fucked, huh?
No honestly bro, stop worrying about "them" lying to you. The earth is not flat. There's no point in creating a big huge lie to manipulate you. Nobody would benefit from global socialism. The only one benefiting from the status quo is oil companies (and that's also the only one lying to you, or at least trying to confuse you, as displayed in this video)
Look, if you fill up your gas tank every week for $20 (which i assume you do), and let's say 1/3 of all Americans do the same, that's 2 billion dollars in revenue from gas stations alone. So approximately $285 million every day. Do you think they wanna stop this? No, which is why they pay someone to go on TV and make it all like "I don't know that there's a problem". And whatever crazy ass conspiracy theory you picked up was either made up by someone who's a little nuts, or I wouldn't be surprised if it was planted by someone from big oil, perhaps indirectly.
Oliver Siegel, That's pretty much what I'm saying. Just what have they done with the billions of dollars to stop anything? Have you learned anything more about climate change from all their research? I'll tell you one thing I've learned that you never hear them mention, in 2017 they discovered 91 new volcanoes under Antarctica's ice, bringing the total to 138. They also discovered super heated mantle plumes melting the ice from beneath. The amount of temperature rise that they report is well within the margin of error. Just what do they compare it to anyway? Back in the 19th century the vast majority of temperature readings came from Europe and the USA. Now they have over 7000 stations in 200 countries. They get monthly readings from 2000 of them. There is 57.5 million square miles of land. That means that each station represents 28,750 square miles. Just how accurate is that for science? The planet is always changing. Al Gore didn't get his enormous wealth from inventing the Internet.
I'm studying environmental studies and climate change, i'm senior in college, and breaking down pundits is something we do fairly often. My problem is - I'm now knowledgeable enough to at least second guess what people are telling me, but most people aren't - how do we as concerned citizens help other people not buy into pundits? I've even seen a couple of comments on this video of people saying that what she said made sense face value, at first glance. Most of the time, first glance face value is all the thought we put into segments we hear. How do we fight this type of punditry? Without giving every single person a baseline knowledge on climate, which is ideal but impossible.
PinkysaurusRawr that's what schools and universities are supposed to teach you in classes like History and languages. But as none of the people that decide on the curriculum have anything to gain from critical thinking, well. Back when my father had to do mandatory military service (in Germany about 30 years ago), he said they didn't like the folks preparing for uni. They didn't follow orders well;p
I studied climate science in grad school. I now teach science to high schoolers for exactly this reason.
Strip the dumb masses of their democratic power and let intelligent elites run the country. Oh wait, part of this is already the case.
Jokes aside, naive people are able to connect to other naive people thanks to global 'social' networks. Education on critical thinking really has to start as early as possible. As a parent, teacher, sibling, whatever. Later, they're only going to believe what they like to hear.
I've kind of given up on trying to convince (adult) people about reasonable thinking and not jumping to conclusions right away. Actually, on changing someone's opinion on subjective topics in general (climate change is a thing of belief for some, same goes for politics). The older they were, the more unlikely it became for them to take a perspective other than their own one. Sorry if this sounds condescending.
I'm just happy, science has a definitive answer where you can tell right from wrong most of the time. :)
The problem with "teaching kids to think critically" is that school curriculum is also subject to politics. So "critical thinking" can mean "be critical of biased sources" or "be critical of scientific consensus." Both of those can be broadly categorized as critical thinking by savvy bureaucrats with an agenda.
I'm an environmental economics PhD candidate and I've been doing research on voter turnout for environmental-issue referendums. There's some interesting results from meta analyses for voter turnout, in general. Populations that are homogeneous, affluent, highly educated, and use simple election systems like first-past-the-post have the highest voter turnout and more voter cohesion on political issues, especially the environment. That's why you see small wealthy nations in Europe leading environmentalism. The US is heterogeneous with large pockets of poverty and little college education, and climate change is a complex issue with no verifiable concrete impact on daily life (it's about trends, not singular disasters like oil spills). The US political system is simply not equipped to seriously tackle climate change.
Because of this, I think the answer is to not leave these decisions to the federal government. It would be great if we could, but states are more homogeneous and the most populace states happen to also be the most affluent and usually the most liberal. I think the path forward in the US is, unfortunately, relying on the good will of corporations and on the innovations they willingly produce on issues that happen to impact them directly (cutting out resource use to cut costs).
I think educating the public would be great and federal cooperation would be great, but everything I've read so far is telling me not to bet all the money on those horses. At least not until the US goes through significant ideological shifts that do not seem forthcoming.
Eat the rich, steve.
She says "anthropogenic" to specifically counter her own statement that she is not a scientist. It's a $10 word showing that, while not an actual scientist, she is still "highly educated" and so her opinion should carry weight. It's an intentionally confusing and misleading way of showing "honesty" in debate (I'm not a scientist), but then immediately turning around and signalling that people should listen to her position anyway because clearly she's studied the topic and knows the lingo (which she wants you to translate to knowing what she's talking about). Now they can keep making any BS points they want because they know they've now tricked some into giving those points credence, but if you call them on it they'll point back to where they said they weren't a scientist as a defense of their integrity.
@Rory Forbes That's really your best comeback? My suggestions as to her rhetorical motivation in using the word has nothing to do with my understanding of the sciences she is commenting on by using it. You do realize that, right? Don't shine up your fancy new soapbox to lecture me on strawmen and ad hominem attacks and then be intellectually disingenuous enough to immediately make hypocritically identical attacks on my inability to "understand the science" and your own biased speculation of how my use this or that line of rhetoric was only done as cover for my "ignorance" of something I wasn't even talking about anyway as if no one would notice.
@@NekoMouser
"My suggestions as to her rhetorical motivation in using the word has nothing to do with my understanding of the sciences she is commenting on by using it."
It does, however, suggest that you want to control the language of your ideological opponents to the point where they will be summarily dismissed.
@@PvblivsAelivs Recognizing and naming the tactics she's using is not the same as wanting to control her language. You are allowed to call people out when they are using deceptive rhetorical devices in an attempt to mislead and obfuscate their intentions. You can decide if you agree that is the tactic she is using or not and if you will dismiss her based on it or not. Personally, I dismiss her for many other reasons, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in her claims, but I also believe that she is intentionally using a dishonest tactic here as well.
@@NekoMouser
"Recognizing and naming the tactics she's using is not the same as wanting to control her language."
Claiming the language she uses (your reference to $10 words) to be such a "tactic" _is_ an attempt to control her language. It is saying that it is dishonest for her to use language you do not approve.
"Personally, I dismiss her for many other reasons, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in her claims, but I also believe that she is intentionally using a dishonest tactic here as well."
Let me call out this dishonest tactic of yours. It is quite clear that you have dismissed her because she has taken a position of which you do not approve. But it's not very convincing to put it like that.
@Fabian Lohrmann
"There is no reason to say anthropogenic instead of man-made (that's what it means I assume?) other than confusion and claiming authority through superficial factors like rhetoric."
It is an official term for the claim. If she had made up the term when the climatologists all said "man-made," you would have a point. Or are you arguing that the supposed experts are/were only trying to confuse and claim authority through superficial factors like rhetoric?
I have little doubt that, if she _had_ said "man-made," people would be talking about her ignorance of the term "anthropogenic."
Who else wants to be Hank when they grow up (or eventually) ?
... grow up?
@@Azzarinne i can watch Hank AND be a high school student 😂
Pfft, as if Hank is a grown up. (And I mean not-a-grown-up in the best possible way)
I want to have Hank's work ethic/drive/motivation, but my Johnlike mental problems keep holding me back.
I'm in my 20s and the Green brothers are still the people I look up to the most (at least among the living).
I have been carefully examining this matter for over a decade, and find that the threat has been greatly hyped up, which is betrayed by the myriad of "climate models" that have consistently projected much more warming than has been observed. I see as somewhat obvious that this has become the centerpiece (regardless of what it originally was) of a massive push for global Governance, which is to say the effective overthrow of "rule by consent of the governed", and a return (where needed) to rule by a few elites.
Wrong. You are clearly oblivious of the global rage against the elites and the plans to make sure they pay to repair the climate.
What is the worst think that can happen from taking action to clean up our act and in the process clean up the Earth; maybe we leave a cleaner world to future generations? Whoa! That would be just awful! (Sarcasm, it's what's for breakfast.)
@@EddyFong ~ Don't you realize that the U.N. is exclusively a coming together of the most powerful people in each nation? As in, the "global elites"? The whole thing is a con, BY global elites, I'm quite sure . . Have you not noticed the calls to END democratic governance (so climate change can be defeated)????
@@sorchaOtwo ~ Go for it, clean up YOUR act . . The "West' has already cleaned up their/our act rather well as far as I can tell . . What are you talking about? CO2 is not "dirty", it's an absolutely vital (trace) gas that asll plants require to live and grow . . which means all animals require, to continue eating . .
@@johnknight3529 "Rather well" snooty if not ignorant. We're responsible for allowing industry to exploit people in far off lands. We're still dumping TONNES of plastic in the ocean. The animals are going extinct at an alarming rate.
But you wash your hands of it mate.
Hank if the lobbyist confused you...she did her job. I'm sure you knew that. Her job is to sound intelligent without being intelligent.
did you watch the whole video? that was his point
Does it matter if Europe is worse than us in this one specific way? The USA is still on planet earth with Europe. The fact that they are doing worse..... directly effects us.
Words matter. All across the board, the bad guys are really really good at choosing loaded words that kill in disguise. When listening to discussions regarding the basic human rights of a certain portion of us, for example, is the word used “homosexual” or “gay”? Do they refer to sexual “preference” or “orientation”? Most people think those are synonymous. They are NOT, nor are they meant to be. The bad guys almost invariably say homosexual and preference. Homosexual reduces a person to a sex act, it denies a full identity. Preference implies choice, orientation correctly describes something that cannot be changed.
I've seen a million people use arguments like this, they're so deliberately dishonest, it's maddening. You can see exactly what they're doing easily enough if you see these arguments often but she isn't giving out this message for people who actually know anything at all about climate change, it's to sow doubt among the general population that doesn't actually pay attention to climate change.
What is crazy about this video is that you spent 15 minutes deconstructing a
+Alex
Essentially a highly distilled Gish Gallop.
Yeah......simpler to just name-call anybody who might agree with you.......disagreers have no human rights and should be sneered at.......and above all, don't even try to see if they might have a valid point.
@@petero9189
1) there was no name calling
2) her human rights have not been brought into question by anyone
3) her points were addressed and promptly eviscerated as the dishonest drivel it is
he's not a scientist, he's a citizen, a stupid citizen.
@@rolandhatton2668
So, there's a sin tax on alcohol and tobacco. Is that evidence that alcohol and tobacco aren't bad for you?
No to mention "dirty coal" as if there's a clean coal. It's misleading.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Very_low_sulphur_coal
No source of energy is completely "clean" (See section 3.4. LCA results in gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Muller-M.2010.pdf if you aren't convinced) but to make the assertion that there is no distinction between different types of coal in their emissions is just ignorant. It's not misleading; it accurately describes the type of coal that must be used by certain coal plants without flue gas delsufurisation units to meet required output limits on sulfur emissions. It's clean relative to it's counterparts that's why the name exists not because its a magic emission less energetic substance.
If someone is mislead about that notion of clean coal I don't really care because they would obviously not be making important decisions in energy regulation or production. Maybe they should just do five minutes of research to find out what something really is.
@@andrewimpellitteri1665 What about solar?
@@jaydentownsend5402 Yes solar is significantly better than carbon based sources of energy in terms of it's "cleanness" or more accurately sustainability (Refer to www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power/ for a more detailed comparison of the two.)
That being said solar panels still have a number of problems, even if all electricity was sourced from renewable sources. For a quantitative analysis of solar panel life cycles and emissions and material inputs check out www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/230_SolarEnergy_PV_LCA_2011.pdf
Fossil fuels are way worse but there are still negative externalities from using solar power that shouldn't be ignored just because it's better than coal or NG.
@@andrewimpellitteri1665 What about harnessing lightning in the next hundred or so years? It's been thought about for years. Personally I think solar technology, even wind is the best option we currently have. And yes mining minerals in general is hard and expensive, especially when it is not carbon. which is found almost everywhere. Maybe we need to perfect what tesla was on about. Yet that could potentially destabilize the atmosphere. Who knows?
@@jaydentownsend5402 not sure about lightning as a power source but I think it would be quite difficult to do effectively. Wouldn't probably have too many environmental effects but there probably isn't an efficient infrastructure design that could work or alternatives would almost certainly be cheaper.
Is Hank older than 35? if so then Hank for president in 2020!
He is 38 according to Wikipedia, so he could go for it. But I doubt he would.
Based on his youthful looks there could be some birtherism going on if he ran. (Which he won't.)
Politics and fame aren't that much different. April May. I have to throw a flag of respectful dissent. I like Hank too much.
Thankfully, Hank seems like the type of guy that understands why its a horrible idea for a TH-cam host to run for President.
@@LePedant he is the guy from scishow if i am not wrong ....plz type right or wrong
Some perspective: We're in an ice age. We could do with some slighter higher temperatures. Life evolved and thrived with CO2 much higher than we have now.
An analysis suggests that in 2040 the climate will disrupt food production so much that we'll be rioting for it. But sure, "we could do with some slightly higher temperatures" for like 10 years and then our neat vacation is over.
@@Ole_Rasmussen On the contrary, increased CO2 will increase food production. The deserts will green. This is because fewer and smaller stomata are required to eat CO2, and thus *much* less water will be lost by to plant through the stomata to transpiration. Temperatures on the earth were quite moderate in the past with much higher CO2 than we have now. In fact we have suffered ice ages with CO2 three times higher than current. The problem is with the phrase "the analysis suggests", which itself suggests mere modelling rather than real data. I'd rather go with geological precedent than faulty human modelling.
I would take the threat more seriously if the models that they use could even come close to an agreement. I have seen the results of the 4 closest models as of 2015, and they are so far off from one another that I have to conclude that what ever happens will happen.
Good point, Mark! You are the first I see who points out that we are in fact living in the time of ice ages. Whatever the short term climate may do, we will be dealing with a very cold, crushing problem in our future. Fortunately, it will set in gradually, so that there can be an endless supply of media hysteria, scientific posturing, and all the usual politics and propaganda before we justify the decision to invade Central America.
@@JeremyBurnett For sure the models are stupid, esp the one the IPCC uses. The reality is far far worse than these models are showing which is why daily we hear the words "faster than expected" because the models are wrong and it's happening faster.
This was a great deconstruction and I would so support more videos like this. Maybe not on your channel, not even necessarily by you, but pulling out the data and analyzing the verbiage used by pundits like this is super interesting.
Potholer54 crushes all the fake science out there
he totally does. he also posted the conservative solution to climate change.
@Karltural Marx Kewl Name! You ever hear of Economist Richard Wolff?
Sorry hank to change this womans mind you have to give her money.
Money only changes her words. Her mind is just a typewriter.
He literally said that everything she said was basically a fact or could be proven in some way statistically.
However, there is that last line, where even I think she is right. Most climate change activists (at least journalists and those in the media and those on youtube from what I've seen) think humans are gunna turn Earth into venus.
Like hold on, let's go over some history, we are in the end of an ice age, something the Earth has had plenty of. Meaning the Earth naturally has its own climate change. All humans are doing (if you believe in man made climate change) is accelerating it.
The Earth will warm and Antarctica will turn back into a rainforest due to the high levels of CO2. Millions of years of higher heat will accelerate growth of vegetation and precipitation (rain). Then comes something amazing, there will be more plants than CO2 available, CO2 plumits and plants release 02 (oxygen) and some like beans produce nitrogen. Thus the cycle goes back, the plants have eaten all the CO2 and there is O2 cooling the Earth back down. Bam another Ice Age begins. Unless humans can produce enough CO2 to keep the Earth warm. This is or could be the end of climate change, instead everyone believes that it's the beginning.
We are terraforming our planet and manipulating its weather for the future so we can continue to grow food. If an ice age happens again, where are you going to grow crops? Indoors hydroponic or aquaponically maybe. But why waste the resources? Why freeze when we could live tropically?
Cowgill, terraforming is a great idea if it is planned out. I'm not sure if I want the free market to decide how our climate changes, I'd rather have a group of people who actually understand climate change to be in charge of that.
Isn't that how scientists get their opinion
You're right about that much. The big money is from governments funding AGW research. If you want to get on the gravy train, you better argue that the sky is falling.
The problem with climate models is that the foundation on which they are based is flawed because it is assumed the sun has a very limited efect on the climate. And that is because cosmoligy itself has some of its very foundations incorrect. Plasma universe holds the answers to widening our understanding of cosmology and with the adjusted baselines to climate models, they would show human effects on climate next to non existant. But too many in science and research have a carreer based in the traditional models of cosmology, not to mention ego, and so they keeep searching for non-existant dark mattter and dark energy and unwittingly keep so much of the public in the dark(in regards to causes of climate change) as a result.
BTW: not a scientist but once i had a nerdy three-way with a couple of science majors.
Slipp E. Physter Nicely said. He would probably have a snowflake melt down if he learned about climate forcing and plasma cosmology.
Loved him blaming European countries for burning high sulfer coal. Where does he think that they bought that coal from.... the US
ajspades19 You may find this interesting
th-cam.com/video/UZ32iClJwSQ/w-d-xo.html
I'm not a meteorologist but I don't believe in hurricanes
Do you belive in himicanes then?
Edward Rhoads of course
I'm not a biologist but I don't believe in bacteria, I think it was all made up by Big Pharma to get us to buy antibiotics.
Seriously debating whether I should actually post this or not, some flat-earther might get ideas...
I'm an environmentalist and I only believe in more and bigger government because people should obey me.
**watching as I'm getting ready to leave**
"Don't watch it if you're not going to watch the rest of the video."
Well fine then.
**adds to Watch Later**
XD
😐
...and then my dentist appointment turned out to be imaginary, so I get to watch after all! 😃😂
rawr
But you came back!
Hopefully for more reason than to simply post a comment.
I was like, well I'll be late to work then.
Hank, how do you deal with climate based malaise? Sometime this stuff just freaks me out so much it’s hard to be optimistic...
+
+
+
+
Nate and Noah Try Life
+
We now have satellite temperature going back to 1978. More than 95% of the climate models and all the multiple variations of these models predicted far more warming then was observed in the satellite record.
It a big scam. We are in for some cooling for the next twenty years. It cyclical and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. The Earth will have many more ice ages before it ends.
"it's neat, except it's terrible" summarises a lot of political arguments it seems.
Next time a Social Justice Warrior tells you "science is settled" on global warming, ask them to explain the science. Then watch the fun.
Why is it that people who use the term SJW - either as an abbreviation or spelled out - often have no real argument of their own? Could it be because they haven't really looked into the topic? So it seems to me...
I'll give it a shot explaining some of the basics, despite not generally labeling myself as a Social Justice Warrior. Note: I provide the below explanation because I used to think there were problems with the science as well, but further research has shown me that is not the case, and I'd like to help others see this to further the discussion. In general though, someone not being able to explain something too you is not good proof that it is false. If you go up to the average person and ask them to explain how we know time is relative based on your speed and the speed of light is an absolute limit I doubt they could give you much of an explanation. This doesn't mean it isn't true, and believing the people that have studied this is a good idea. Anway, explanation.
We are burning carbon that has been stored below the surface, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. Just to head off on of the typical objections, yes, there are other things that release CO2, like volcanoes, but they are part of the typical CO2 cycle, which isn't overall adding or removing CO2, just rotating it around. Since the oil and coal has been deposited below the surface, burning it introduces new CO2 into the system, increasing the baseline concentration. And in any case, the increased concentration matches up with the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.
CO2 has an absorption spectra (how much it absorbs different wavelengths of light) that overlaps quite a bit with the earth's radiation spectrum (how much light is emitted from the earth at different wavelengths, which is how heat is lost from the earth) and not much with the sun's radiation spectrum (how heat is gained by the earth). Since the CO2 absorbs more light emitted by the earth, it traps some of that heat but without blocking much energy from the sun, causing the net energy balance to increase and temperature to rise.
Note that this gets much more complicated as to the actual amount of temperature increase since the molecules also emit the light again, absorption is different at different layers in the atmosphere, the energy balance depends on the overall absorption of the new emission spectrum of the earth at the new temperature, absorption has a logarithmic effect, the effects of other molecules (such as methane and H2O) are also significant in different parts of the absorption spectrum etc... Suffice to say these don't affect the trend of increasing CO2 leads to increasing temperatures, and that the increase is not negligible at current concentrations. See here for a more in depth explanation: scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/. That site also has very good overviews of the science of almost every part of how climate change works.
Hope the information is useful to you in some way, and let me know if you have any questions on it.
Hi, and thanks for the reply. I was not expecting that you would accept climate change. I find a lot of the people who speak of SJW tends to deny man-made climate change, and also basic facts and mechanics regarding CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Just another reminder to be aware of prejudice, and the fact that we all have at least some of it... ;) Myself including, if that is unclear. :D
The point I try to make when debating climate change is that the efforts needed to reduce emissions long term tends to be beneficial short term. One example is coal-fired power plants, their emissions locally as well as the dangerous leftover product, coal ash.
Better public transportation is another; where you reduce the need to build roads and at the same time provide a transport alternative for those with low income. This is beneficial to society in many ways.
@@thomasr7129 I do have an idea and plenty of arguments.
The fact that I call some of you SJW, means that too many of you are arguing from ignorance.
@@thomasr7129 I'll ask you a question and if you can't answer it means you're SJW, yeah? What is the roll of water vapor?
@hankschannel: I'm glad I watched the video till the end. It was worth the watch (time). Your analysis is admirable.
The best thing I liked about the analysis was how you distanced yourself from getting involved in the issue personally. Good for you!
HC-JAIPUR (25/09/2019)
"We don't talk about it... it's not part of the agenda." What agenda? Who's we? Whose agenda? If the agenda prevents mention of itself, how does she get away mentioning it? Great deconstruction Hank! 👍☺👏
Thanks Hank. This is a brilliant dissection of the sort of typical conservative issue-framing that gets presented *as though* it is an actual argument. Your video is an even more scathing examination of how the media immediately accept framing like this, without question, without thinking, without even blinking. Media pundits and liberal politicians are nearly always guaranteed to take the bait, rather than address any actual argument being presented (assuming there even is one). While thinking people work to establish the facts and find reasonable solutions, conservatives are busy sowing discord and manipulating how people feel. The only thing making that a brilliant strategy is the ineptitude of liberals, scientists, journalists and others to see what's actually going on.
Isn't it odd that your criticisms are asserted by every political viewpoint?
Persuasion tactics are ubiquitous.
Artificial divides are well funded perpetuating failure to consolidate populace against meaningful threats to wellbeing like pollution via glyphosate, endocrine disruptors in water such as Pharma pollution, fluoride, glyphosate, addicted nation, fatter, sicker w no end in sight.
Fear is the mind killer, #QuestionEverything
I don't think it's an example of blindly accepting something, since the responses are things we don't get to see in this video.
It’s a 30 sec segment that took hank 15 min to dissect. It’s not feasible to ask people in the middle of conversation to repute it on the spot. The problem is larger than winning this one battle and it will take efforts like this video to combat it. Blaming the media is easier than accepting the much harder reality that has plagued history forever: people are easily fooled
Hank, I REALLY reccomend you check out The Alt-Right Playbook playlist made by the channel Innuendo Studios. It discusses the rhetorical strategies used by political speakers of all stripes but recently capitalized upon by the right in general and far right in specific. Its a fascinating dissection, and good listening to boot.
It's such a good series. We go high, they go low, really was whiplash to me.
LoorTheDarkElf +++
I'm really against calling all your opponents alt-right aka Nazis which he does. Basically the alt-left playbook (call all opponents Nazis). There are some good things there, it just irks me how he approaches it in that series.
@ not everyone alt right is nessarly a Nazi (alougth there is alot of over lap)
Also the coining of the term alt left in it's self is a tactic, it's the "your just as bad as us" argument when in reality the radical left is barely a thing while the alt right and neo Nazis have had literal marches with literal Nazi flags so it isn't a stretch to call some of them neo Nazis or worry about them.
Also I haven't seen one actual argument about any so called alt left tactics that didn't amount to a whole bunch of vauge conspiracies about the media or other such thing.
@@noname-zp1yh Very, very few people called alt-right by others are actually alt-right. The alt-right is probably one of the most misunderstood political "movements" out there. For example, when people claim the Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shapiro are alt right. It's used to be able to to bunch up people, condemning them by proxy through association and completely dilutes the political conversation, even if it is the furthest thing from the truth.
Am I the only one who didn’t find her at all convincing? This just seemed like a bunch of climate skeptic talking points that I’ve heard hundreds of times before. I’ve heard much more convincing arguments from other climate skeptics.
You aren't the target audience. The target audience is old people, primarily (Meet the Press Sunday morning). And it's old people who already agree or are easily manipulated.
culwin Very good point. She wasn’t trying to convert me but instead appeal to those on the fence.
@@culwin NO.....old people were involved in, or immediately affected by, the world wars against the Leftist takeover...Fascists, Nazis, Russian Communism, Chinese Communism...cold war, Vietnam war ......massive number of deaths...... so they easily resist the latest leftist takeover rhetoric using "saving the world" as a reason to need to take over the world and impose draconian measures on everybody....including denying 2nd and 3rd world peoples any chance of improving their grim lot in life.
The fact that hank and his brother are so popular on the internet brings me hope for the world, two of the best dudes on the internet.
This is why I can't partake in news media anymore. Everyone is crafting their arguments so carefully and deviously that it's hard to know who to trust. (Not that I believe any anti-climate-change arguments for a second anyway...)
So true. And I bet if someone on the panel had asked her to clarify that confusing sentence about dropping temperatures, she'd have had another ambigous statement at the ready. It's so hard to get to the bottom of things in these kinds of shows.
What you have to remember is that any media that relies on advertising does not care about validity, it only cares about clicks. All advertised media optimizes for views and not truth. The only news that can be somewhat trusted in paid prescription. Prescription-based models still care about readership, but the readership changes more slowly so individual stories don't require immediate clicks and views. That's how the Economist can stay so boring and informative.
The antidote to confusing information is more information. Most of the people that work in media are just stiff workers like everybody else, it's not a conspiracy and editorial lines tend to be pretty clear from the outset.
The main thing is that science is not something that should be politicized. Studies are backed by corporations, think tanks or universities and things with names like the "Group for Concerned Citizens About Economic Impact of Climate Change" are like usually think tanks financially backed by oil/coal investors...
Unfortunately, there are people that are supposed to do that legwork for us - they are called scientists. But lately, they've taken out scientists from leadership positions on the White House and replaced them with lobbyists.
I would agree with this sentiment when it comes to television news on a widespread scale. There are a lot of bad faith arguments and agendas that get pushed onto the population. Some channels are interested in propaganda for one viewpoint (*Cough* Fox) while others are more interested in scaring you or making you angry (CNN) to increase your engagement. That being said there are still plenty of journalists doing great work, I would argue these sources exist primarily in the written publications. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Economist, Financial Times, NPR, National Review are all participating in responsible journalism is the U.S.
Miranda Finn - Then outreach to independent media platforms, not the televised MSM outlets (ex FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC Nightly, etc).
Try Al Jezeera, RT, Reuters, The Intercept, TruthDig, MediaMatters, Axios, Mediaite, Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac, Splinter, etc.
The "I'm not a scientist" bit is just a common tactic to be able to spout any old bs to undermine almost all of the world's scientists.....basically saying; "I'm not scientist, but looking at alternate facts I, somehow, know better".
@jbaz77777 Even if what you say it's true, it's a moot point. The issue isn't the levels of CO2, but how how fast the level is changing. Previously when temperature and CO2 levels changed, it took many hundreds of thousands of years at least. With human activity, the levels are changing on a timescale which is orders of magnitudes shorter, therefore not allowing ecosystems time to adapt to the change, where previously they could. If ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough you get mass extinction. If we get mass extinction, the global food supply runs dry as the complex systems which allow human agriculture and fishing cease to exist. And well we don't want that to happen.
@@CockatooDude, how fast the level of CO2 changes is not relevant to anything beyond how fast the level of CO2 is changing. If you quadruple the CO2 around a plant it will be just fine, and you can do that almost instantly in a commercial greenhouse. Most operators pump in CO2 and levels are three or four times the 400 ppm in the general atmosphere. The real problem will appear if we see CO2 drop below 150 ppm, causing most plants to die.
Quaddo: sadly Dr Mann is not a scientist either! He is the developer of the hockey stick graph. Read, and learn: www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
@@Ron_the_Skeptic I see why you would make that comparison but I would like to let you know why it is flawed, if I may. You cannot simply compare a greenhouse to the Earth. In a greenhouse, it makes perfect sense to pump up the CO2 levels as there are only a few types of plants inside which are being sustained by the grower. However the Earth's ecosystems are far more complex, and have evolved to optimize around current CO2, and more importantly, heat levels. Corals are a good example of this, raise the average temperature a bit and suddenly there are hot points during the summer where the polyps cannot survive. They can of course regrow, but if that period is too long, then the coral dies. Over time the polyps can adapt to higher temperatures, but it takes hundreds of thousands of years, not just hundreds. And this isn't just speculation, we can see this happening right now, over *half* of all corals around the world have died in a bleaching event between 2014 and 2017, here's a link if you are interested:
coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/global_coral_bleaching_2014-17_status.php
It is not debatable that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, that is a proven fact. The issue isn't whether or not it's good for plants, it's whether or not it's good for global ecosystems. I used the example of coral bleaching as it really highlights how serious this issue is. But species on land will fare no better if the atmosphere warms beyond a certain threshold. And the atmosphere is warming, the temperature data was presented in the video.
So I will say it again, if the temperature changes too fast, ecosystems cannot adapt in time, and biodiversity takes a massive plunge, like is happening right now with coral reefs. Most of the world's fish get their food from coral reefs, as they are the oceans' forests. If the reefs die, the fish die, if the fish die, billions of people who depend on them for food starve. Not only that, but nutrient circulation around the ocean would be vastly decreased. Coastal birds would also have no food, and no doubt most of them would go extinct, this in turn would lead to a disruption of coastal land and estuary ecosystems which depend on the birds. Everything in Earth's biosphere is connected to everything else, and if we want to avoid massive catastrophe as a species, we must keep this biosphere in balance. There is no other option south of moving humanity to orbital habitats or terraforming another planet, but for now, switching to renewable energy sources and cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a lot easier.
@@Ron_the_Skeptic I looked into this, the Lavoisier group is an organization "...formed by politicians and dominated by retired industrial businesspeople and engineers." (Wikipedia). They have been actively lobbying against and downplaying the effects of climate change for over a decade now so they can make more profit. I would not necessarily take a report of theirs as unbiased information.
Wow. I’m not even an American and this has left me deeply disturbed and sort of anxious. It’s amazing what strategies and tricks this woman and her organization use to make the truth seem like lies.
Yea truth is highly regarded by liberals
@@rolandhatton2668 says:
"Yea truth is poison to liberals"
==
Do you believe the bible is a historical document?
If you do, then the truth is a lie and lie is a truth.
Climate change is certainly an important matter, we better get those carbon taxes implemented asap.
@@rolandhatton2668 says:
" more believable than climate change scam,"
==
I didn't know that.
Any sites that show evidence of bible stories?
Fossil of Adam?
Pieces of Noah's Ark etc?
None.
On the other hand, climate change has millions of evidence.
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
@@rolandhatton2668 says:
"yea we both know we dont care what each other think so goodbye"
==
You are wrong.
I do care about what you think.
No matter how stupid you are, you still have a right to vote.
That's a scary fact.
Unanswered,
Do you believe the bible is a historical document?
Temperature is a complicated matter. What time, what place, what reason, etc. I still have a dozen questions about what places and what reasons, and I think we need to be more aware of local and hemispheric climates. Anyway, I liked the well-reasoned approach in response to hysteria. Hopefully, our technology becomes exponentially more efficient and we create common sense regulations for industry and energy.
EDIT: Thank you, Hank, for being one of the few voices on TH-cam with an interesting, middle-ground, and importantly, polite way of handling the issue of climate change. Props!
I know that you normally don’t put out vids like this but feel free to do more cuz this one was great
My worry is that "figure out a way to deal with this" for a lot of companies and especiallhy the richest companies is going to mean, "what minimal adjustments do we make to our new offices so that we can continue to sell our product and profit hugely even when everything is drowning and how do we plan to sell water at exuberent prices after most lakes have dried up" instead of "what changes can we make long term to minimise damage to the human race and prevent genocide". Oil companies have known about climate change and in response built floating oil rigs for alaska when the warm drilling season expands by 4 months and the rest of their rigs have drowned. This thinktank malarky is a microcosm of the worst and oldest and richest business interests fighting tooth and nail to do business as usual for as long as possible without consequence. Markets seem to not be the solution i can depend on.
global warming refers to the average temperature going up. Climate change refers to the effect of global warming. Also global warming increases the variance of temperatures, which means the weather can become more extreme on both ends of the spectrum, which means it can get colder than usual at times. Many people don’t understand this simply because they don’t know how to think about probabilities.
vinainor the effect of global warming is supposed to be global warming, not global cooling, sorry. They changed the name to climate change to fit the fact that rapid warming wasn't happening. Now they can blame everything on climate change. Nice scam huh ?
@@ricktd6891 You call it a scam, I call it your disability to read a graph. It's not rocket science if the line goes upwards, I thought anyone could understand that.
@@Sniperfuchs "It's not rocket science if the line goes upwards" ? What does that even mean ?
@@ricktd6891 the line of the graph showing the mean temperature going up. The graph in this very video you watched.
@@Sniperfuchs were you trying to say rising temperatures on the graph prove we have a problem and we're causing it ? Because we don't have a problem, so we can't be causing it because it doesn't exist. The Earth is historically cold right now over the long term. They don't want to go back too far in history ( 1000 years ) or you would realize it was warmer then... and warmer yet 2000 years ago, even warmer 3500 years ago and on and on. The warming we had since coming out of The Little Ice Age is completely natural and the trend might be reversing now that we're in a grand solar minimum. Temperatures have already set a 2 year cooling record since 2016 that goes back 100 years at least.
Very clever pundit. I might also add that at the time the USA had only announced its intention to withdraw from Paris, and it only withdrew this year. Thanks for tearing her a new one.
Thank you for this video hank. Its important to talk about how talk is deceiving.
You're preaching to the choir here unfortunately. I hope the audience who she mislead, also watch this video...
I can see a lot of climate change "skeptics" and outright deniers here in the comments, so it's not just the choir in attendance.
That's the problem with vids like this one, it attracts either the people with a similar outlook or the entire opposite view whose opinion wouldn't be changed if they were standing there, like King Canute, telling the sea to go back. You never seem to attract the middle ground majority who would perhaps say, "Thank you for this information, things are a little clearer now". This isn't just the fault of this vid, it is a general fault of the WWW. Different opinions only seem to attract comments from either supporters or denigrators, the people in the middle might be watching but you can never tell if you are achieving your objective of getting them to think about things.
Magnus, more like preaching to sheep who believe this garbage. CAGW is a scam.
@@cobraimploder There is no such thing as a "Climate Change Denier" - The climate has been changing since the Earth's atmosphere first formed, and anyone who denies that has an IQ that can be measured one your fingers. The only thing the people YOU try to claim deny that the climate changes are actually denying is that humans have a significant and catastrophic effect on the natural changes in the climate. Which EVEN THE IPPC REPORT said "We don't know" but the politicians wrote a "Summary" that said the exact opposite, the so-called scientists who came up with the infamous hockey-stick graphs fudged their data by substituting actual temperature measurements in place of their proxy data when their proxy data said there was a declining temperature when actual thermometers said it was warmer (AKA "Hide the Decline" in the data, AKA Climategate.)
AGW is a scam. Always has been. Even the liberal BBC was forced to admit it when they tried to find actual climatologists who would corroborate the claims in Al Gore's movie. Rather than waste the money they had invested in their research, they made "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
th-cam.com/video/oYhCQv5tNsQ/w-d-xo.html
@@RedwoodTheElf Saying that the climate has been changing since the Earth's atmosphere first formed is like telling a man struck with a deadly illness that he's been on his way to the grave since the day he was born. It's disingenuous and completely irrelevant. Also, show me that fabled "We don't know" from the IPPC report, I'll wait.
this was published in 2018, the temperature graph terminates at 2016, call me dumb, but that would be two years without temperature data? how does this disprove the claims of lower temperatures for the past two years? might want to deconstruct the deconstruction
Excellent video. I was surprised Hank made no commentary at all about the mechanisms of green house gasses causing warming. When the panelist dismissed human cause, she also inherently dismissed the physics of GHGs, and thereby completely avoided engaging empirical and reproducible scientific fact. This allowed her to continue arguing about areas of less definitive knowledge.
This breakdown of her argument is amazing.
This definitely gave me some food for thought. I'll have to listen much more closely to what I'm hearing on the news and in interviews concerning climate change (and all other important political matters). It's easy to let vague well-crafted messaging convince us that the point made is entirely reasonable, but a critical approach to this messaging needs to be made to understand what's really being said.
She avoided the microaggression of calling it "global warming" and instead uses the term climate change throughout. THEN went on to make the statement about having the coldest winters in history, a reply commonly used to denounce global warming and the primary reason the term is avoided now. But this also allowed the listener to draw the term from memory and apply it. Something I was immediately guilty of.
But the classic was the "...but I don't know" in the form of "but I'm not a scientist" was great. Say that and you can throw soft facts around all day long.
The real reason "global warming" is not used anymore is because the warming has basically flat-lined. Can't be used for propaganda anymore. Climate Change is infinitely more flexible when trying to get people to shit their pants. Truth is, a little warming would be good for life on planet Earth. A little more CO2 would be good for planet Earth. There is already a significant increase in "green" vegetation on the planet due to more CO2. We currently live in an era that is a bit CO2 starved compared with the most vibrant times in the history of life on our planet.
@@Randsurfer the slight benefit for plants with having more CO2 does not in any way mitigate the problems we are causing by emitting such huge amounts of greenhouse gases. the globe is warming, but this causes complicated climate issues, not just a comprehensive warming. the global warming is causing climate change (along with the pollution caused by our energy and manufacturing industries)
I hear a lot of people make similar claims to this woman "well it was so cold this year, how could global warming be happening?" Regardless of whether or not that is true, it demonstrates a tremendous misunderstanding of how long term weather data is analyzed and understood. Yes, there will be fluctuations in weather patterns from year to year. That doesn't mean the average temperature isn't still trending upwards overall. I am concerned as a citizen of this world who values truth and objectivity above all else. Science has become heavily politicized and facts should never be up for political debate.
Climate is not "weather" = yet weather can be impacted by climate. Until these climate change denier moppets understand that concept = they will continue with inane analogies and their fundamental misunderstanding of climate change science.
Professional propagandist at work. Bravo.
Meet the Press, everday!
I love the fact that you destruct rethorics. We need more of that in the world and on the internet. Especially since the broad masses just sucks up whatever appeals to them instead of being critical and well-informed.
One thing I personally find interesting is that people blame China for CO2 emmissions, when in fact they are the biggest export of products to please western countries over-consumption. When talking about environment we need to look into complete life-cycle of products. How much impact does the things you own have on the environment? Our computers, phones, tvs, cars etc needs mining. Retrieving natural resources, which requires tons of energy. But we don't include into our own countries environmental impact. (it's china's fault, right?), but in fact, we're the ones demanding it. That is something no person in power talks about since our economy is built on capitalism. People, countries, economy etc are all a part of global warming. It's not like it needs to stop andgo back to being cave men but we do need to start to think about how to make our societies sustainable and climate neutral. How do we get there? Without pissing on the world we love.
NASA satellite data shows that the surface temperature of the earth has not risen at all in the last 18 years. Where was that graph? Just wondering.
Sadly the scientists over seeing the satellite data have been bullied into "correcting" it when no warming was found. The modified graphs literally look like the original ones tilted at an angle to portray warming.
@@EdmontonRails that's sounds about right. Like when they say 97% of scientists agree on climate change, there's one falsified paper they reference and a whole lot of grant money based on that claim. They also forget the Roman warming period which was warmer than today's temps and the little ice age. In the last 2000 years there's been about 3 colder than average periods and about 3 as warm or warmer periods that were considerable. That's just 2000 years, none of which were man made.
@@EdmontonRails Yep, Heller reported this 2 years ago. th-cam.com/video/SBRBrI7O0LY/w-d-xo.html
@ajspades19 the TLT data from 1979 to 2009. A few years ago the algorithms were changed and that resulting data show 140% increase in the last 50 years or something. Actual data showed what didn't fit the agenda so the data was changed. I can't believe we haven't baked to death yet. And why are millionaires still buying ocean front real estate? There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers published every year from all over the scientific community disproving it as well. Actually go beyond polititions and the media and do some research that doesn't include the IPCC report and you might learn a lot.
@ajspades19 I just gave you a 30 year report. You seriously want me to mention every scientist and every report by name and publication? I'm sorry you're incapable of free thought and can't find the info on your own. It must be tough being that lazy. I feel sorry for you. Just keep getting your info from cnn, you'll be fine in life.
The prior question is whether anything we can do anthropogenically can possibly change the inevitable movement towards the end of the current glacial cycle which will raise ocean levels another 200 ft., as in the previous comparable 5 glacial cycles. We cannot and the report from the UN released 3 weeks after the Paris Accords confirms this.
A woman hired to make scientists look dumb, a historian, a lobbyist, and two journalists walk onto a stage.
And they say to each other “wait we can’t expect to have a debate about climate change that actually means anything without a scientist, or at the very least someone well versed in the topic.”
If you know anything about history you know it's a scam.
That’s a funny joke. I can tell it’s a joke because it would never actually happen. Haha. 😐
She completely confused me with the cold winters thing because where I live the winters have been significantly snowier, and I know climate change is causing wet places to get wetter, so I have amused that it was places snowier as well but I never think about the temperature, and it seems like it is not colder anyways it is just by me. Idk but that part of her argument caught me by surprise
Yes winters are getting colder but the summers are also getting hotter. Summers are increasing in temp faster than winters are decreasing in temp such that the average world temp is increasing.
Which one do we listen to?:
"Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”
Nov. 2, 1922.
“10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
-July 5, 1989
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
2007
Cherry-picking. Nice. Not.
Where are these even from
My biggest concern abt climate change at this point is like, what does it mean to be a kid growing up without air quality? With natural disasters at every turn, more sickness? I see how the pandemic alone effected me and especially younger children and I can only imagine how absolutely traumatic and brain rotting it would be to grow up when outside is so much more dangerous
Despite how meticulously worded it was, alarm bells should always start ringing as soon as extremism and distancing is implied. Emotional language needs to be kept out of this debate and any others like it; no, "hysterical", "we", "them", alienation ("I'm not a scientist"), implied agendas or confusingly worded statements.
If you make a claim show the data and explain why you reached your conclusion. Every piece of science has some percentage error associated with it and i believe if you are making any claims in such a public setting either you or someome else in the panel should be required to point out the limitations of your data.
There's concerned, then there are like fifteen other steps, then there's hysterical.
Woah this title has me shook
10:26 my immediate thought was “it doesn’t matter who’s doing it or where, the affects are going to end up at your doorstep.”
Thank you for this. I was a little confused when I saw the news.
It seems like the media is totally incapable of handling these arguments.
It's actually mostly down to Chuck Todd not being in any way qualified to host a show like Meet the Press.
Calm down Hank! It seems you think the opposing side should not even have a voice. How very Fascistic of you.
Biggest challenge humanity has ever faced is a bit of an overstatement. I mean, we almost went extinct that one time. Not to say climate change isn’t the biggest challenge we face now, it is.
Its so mind blowing that the trumpy republicans cant comprehend the difference between climate and temperature
The more accurate truth is that they just don't care.
They aren't stupid. They comprehend it.
Pretty hard to find a republican who isn't a trump voter. You need the exact same kind of mindset that enables climate change deniers to ever put your trust in an anti-vaccer president.
I have gone from fully believing humans were the main cause of climate change to being unsure. Obviously the polar vortex isn't really evidence of anything. Could be a short term (climate time scale here) fluke or it could be something more. I often get called a "denier" when I argue my points on this topic, which I won't waste my time doing here. I'd just like to set the record straight.
Y'all often say "denier" as if it's some evil scheme or that the person is just intellectually inferior to yourself. That is obviously not the case. The truth is almost everyone who you would classify as a "denier" believes that humans have an impact on the climate. The question that myself and others like me try to get an answer to is "How much of an impact do we really have"? And I've personally read many research papers over the years trying to find an answer to this very question. I've debated and discussed with people who believe the same and different. In fact, I was completely on the side of humans being the main cause until I had a debate and was, afterwards, given a few research papers to review. They didn't disprove anthropogenic global warming, but they did call many things into question.
It's very interesting to go from one side to the other for a specifically informational reason. I have no dogs in this race. It interests me purely for a scientific understanding of the topic. Both sides of this debate tend to twist facts and state possibilities as stone-carved. You should not do this. If you want to have someone listen to you, here's an idea... Don't just assume they're an idiot. Don't disregard them, simply because you disagree. Understand that just because you believe you're right, doesn't mean you are. Just like the 97% lie. Firstly, it wouldn't matter if 97% of scientists agreed that humans were the main cause of global warming. Majority means nothing in science. If we fall into that stance, little progress will ever be made. Secondly, it was mostly bullshit anyway. However, to this day, when I discuss this topic with someone, they will bring this point up and I have to show them why the 97% isn't real.
My questions that science has failed to answer at this point are "What impact do humans have on the climate?" and "What can we cost effectively do about it?" Climate models are unimpressive and still don't factor in clouds satisfactorily. Just like some cloud nucleation research has shown that cloud coverage in the past has been very likely underestimated, which changes a lot about our understanding of climate change. There are a lot of things that raise questions without good answers right now. Most of us "deniers" aren't "deniers" at all. We just don't agree that humans are most certainly the main cause of the climate change we see. Humans definitely have an impact, but when the costs of "fixing" it are so high right now, understanding how big that impact is, is very important.
I've made the mistake of debating in youtube comment sections before and I will not do that here. If you really want to have a discussion with me, I'm all for it. However, I'm starting a new job and I've got a lot on my plate right now. So, if you do want to discuss this topic with me, send me a message and we can schedule a time and place to have a voice chat to discuss this. I hope this helps some understand that the other side isn't just a bunch of idiots. Some of us are very intelligent. We're skeptical and we want some real hard evidence. That's all.
Try the Potholer54 channel he's pretty good at explaining all things climate related, including dumping on Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Well said, Chrispm84! You wrote: "Firstly, it wouldn't matter if 97% of scientists agreed that humans were the main cause of global warming. Majority means nothing in science." So much chaos and confusion all over the web and the airwaves, it is nice to see your clarity and accuracy. It would be nice if scientists themselves would remember the _Nature of Science_ when speaking to the media, and clarify when they are stepping outside of their own field in order to express a personal belief or opinion.
I don't think she's smart. I think she is very well rehearsed. She learned just her lines.
The US may not burn high suffer coal anymore, but we sure as hell are selling it to other countries. So don't blame European counties for burning our coal.