Why would I trust this youtube video over the research of people who do this for a living? Get back to me after you've had this peer reviewed.

Trust? I'm more interested in understanding methodologies than "trusting" conclusions. I wouldn't trust any particular source, so I look to many. If the video is misleading in any way then I want to know why, not just whether it is or isn't.

Are there any parts of the video that you believe misrepresented the measurements in question? Do you feel that it ignored any findings in particular?

I admit that I do not understand the "proof" behind the assertion that CO2 is having a huge impact on the climate. I've talked to some fairly knowledgeable people in various scientific disciplines and the best answers I can get are "yea, it's been proven".

It really seems like people on both sides of this debate are just picking someone to "believe" and then defending that position by stating it as fact. I'm not satisfied with that approach, which is one reason why I posted this video. I like debate about evidence, not who is or is not credible.

If the video is wrong then I'm fine with that... it's just a random video I found. Tell us why it's wrong. =)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why would I trust this youtube video over the research of people who do this for a living? Get back to me after you've had this peer reviewed.

>> ^Psychologic:
Trust? I'm more interested in understanding methodologies than "trusting" conclusions.


Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?

Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.

^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

^But you do 'believe' in scientific consensus. You 'believe' every other conclusion scientific consensus has ever come to. You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?

Why defy science on this lone issue?

Could it have anything to do with the billion dollar PR campaign designed to put these ideas in the public mind?

Video Analysis:

I can't speak to the validity of the science, because I am not a scientist, but I can certainly speak to some of the political manipulation found within this video.

-The video replaces the term 'climate science' with the less accurate, more politically charged term 'global warming'.
-Science is described as 'opinion' to downplay the research that defines it.
-'Public opinion' is put on an equal footing with science.
-The "debate" is framed as one of equals, using the image of two men with cannons firing at each other. In reality, this is science vs. rich guys who don't want to clean up their factories.
-The video pretends to differentiate itself from, and rise above these two warring factions, despite its overt partisanship.
-The video condescendingly reminds scientists of the importance of evidence. WTF?
-At the end, the video reaches conclusions that were not satisfactorily proven, and then displays the image of a judge pounding a gavel in an attempt to invoke the mental frame of officiality and authority in the mind of the viewer.

The debate on this issue has nothing to do with science, it is pure *politics. The scientific process has already reached the consensus that climate change is real, man made and potentially harmful to organic lifeforms. I find it disturbing that you would put politics on an equal footing with science within the context of a scientific debate. Putting your 'belief' in experts is a good thing, and I imagine that outside of this political bizzaro world, you probably do just that.

If you need medical attention, you go to a doctor, not a lawyer.
If you need your car fixed, you go to a mechanic, not a gourmet chef.
If you need information on climate change, you go to climate scientists, not greedy industrialists!

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

I'm about halfway though it, right where they give their "verdict" on their first question of "is the world getting any warmer".

Basically, everything they showed was a litany of cherry picked data points.

I was particularly disappointed when they started citing news reports in 2008 about how there might've been an increase in ice cover that year from 2007. 2007 was the warmest year in the entire historical record since they started directly measuring temperatures and keeping records.

They kinda give away their problem when they showed the level of solar radiation on top of the last century's temperature record and said the "correlation was high". Well, yeah, but if you look at that picture carefully, you notice that the temperatures start getting above it more and more often the longer you go forward.

Why? Because there's more CO2 in the air, so I'll see now what they say about CO2.

Oh my. I guess I'm not sure what the argument they tried to present really was. Some things they said:

• There's a really small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
  
• Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources
  
• CO2 makes plants grow more
  
• Nobody's ever proven that CO2 has ever increased temperatures (no supporting evidence or refutation of people who've claimed to have proven this, just the naked assertion)
  
• The only reason why anyone thinks global warming is real is because of a "dubious" computer program (no info given on why it's dubious, or what might be wrong with said program)
  

*nochannel
*eco
*science
*politics
*controversy
*animation

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, History, Politics, Nature, Animation, Future, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Animation, Controversy, Eco, Politics, Science) - requested by NetRunner.

I definitely question those things... not whether they exist, but what their underlying mechanics are. As far as I am aware, the exact nature of gravity (for example) is still uncertain.

Likewise, I am not proposing that the climate is not changing. I do want to understand why it changes though, and I have to get beyond that before I can even begin to know whether or not I agree with projections for the future.

If I had to pick sides for some reason, then I would side with the consensus. I have no reason to doubt it. That wouldn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity though... I like to know how stuff works. If someone asked me whether or not I could explain how much of an effect humans have on the climate then I would have to answer "no", and that bothers me.

Disagree with the video all you want, but don't think that it represents me. It's just something I posted to start a discussion.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?
Why defy science on this lone issue?

Everyone is allowed an opinion though non of you are qualified to have a "valid" opinion.
I'm a septic as to whether CO2 causes Global Warming. The fact the I don't see any "Official Study" to prove 100% one way or another leaves me unconvinced either way - but that's my opinion.

I also have never seen a video which proves that Global warming is truly happening - therefore my inclination is to believe the status quo and lean in the direction that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

No proof either way - leave it alone - again my unqualified opinion.

A lot of cherry picking news articles whithin there.

>> ^Psychologic:

I definitely question those things... not whether they exist, but what their underlying mechanics are. As far as I am aware, the exact nature of gravity (for example) is still uncertain.
Likewise, I am not proposing that the climate is not changing. I do want to understand why it changes though, and I have to get beyond that before I can even begin to know whether or not I agree with projections for the future.
If I had to pick sides for some reason, then I would side with the consensus. I have no reason to doubt it. That wouldn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity though... I like to know how stuff works. If someone asked me whether or not I could explain how much of an effect humans have on the climate then I would have to answer "no", and that bothers me.
Disagree with the video all you want, but don't think that it represents me. It's just something I posted to start a discussion.


Great points! Glad to hear that this video does not represent your views, and big ups for intellectual curiosity for how things work.

"Sides" are my problem.

There aren't two sides to this debate. There is science, and there is corporately funded propaganda. Science starts with data and works forwards towards a conclusion; the corporate skeptics start with their conclusion and work backwards to try and find only the bits of data that support the previously decided upon conclusion. There is zero intellectual curiosity behind this 'skepticism', and their really isn't any genuine skepticism either, just profit motive.

Notice how this corporate effort manipulates and flatters people. If you embrace their ideas, they are quick to compliment you for your freethinking, your independence of thought, your wise skepticism, and your ability to see the truth through all the partisan hackery. Never mind that half empty Kool Aid pitcher on the table or that quivering bladder full of purple sticky stuff, because you are an individual goddamit!

This is called identity politics, because the ideology is basically stapled to your ego. It's very effective, because you can't change your mind on the issue without also sacrificing the fantasy of your own bold, rugged individualism. Not only that, but your old skeptic friends will consider you just another sheep in the herd, a patsy, a monkey, another drone in the matrix, blind to larger conspiracy that surrounds us all.

If you want to satisfy your intellectual curiosity on climate change, go to the source. Science isn't some faceless authority that hands down arbitrary judgments (like the Supreme Court). Science is made up of intellectually curious individuals who want to know how things work. They carry out their debates through research and editorialize with peer review. At the end of the day, the ideas that have not been disproved are allowed to remain, while the ideas that have been disproved are discarded. Is this not a fucking beautiful system?!

Thanks for the opportunity to articulate some of these thoughts in writing. I'm upvoting the video for the discussion.

(not sure why the formatting is so strange on this comment)

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm a septic....


lol

i was gonna comment on the videos obvious cherry picking and subtle manipulation but DFT and netrunner handily laid that out.
as for peer reviewed papers concerning climate change i used to have a fantastic site that was written in terms most of us layman could understand fairly easily but i cant find it in either my bookmarks nor my favorites.
i will continue to look for it and post the link here if/when i find it.
great post though in regards to exposing how easily this subject can be manipulated.

Random point from the video: Increased CO2 causes plants to grow faster.

Ideally this would lead to increased plant biomass and thus increased intake of CO2.

Does anyone have any resources on whether the global biomass is increasing or decreasing overall amid deforestation? Any ideas on how much that change has affected (or should affect) the total intake of CO2?

OMG, what a pack of lies.

That would be decreasing terrestrial biomass Psychologic. (2004 figures though)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle


That diagram also shows the deception behind their misleading low percentage for human contribution to atmospheric CO2.

5.5 from fossil fuels vs 60 from forests, 60 from soils, 92 from the oceans.

Looks tiny if you pretend the 121.3 back into forests and soils and the 92 back into the ocean doesn't count.

The 1.3 difference for terrestrial forests and soils covers the CO2 fertilisation effect.

>> ^Sagemind:

Everyone is allowed an opinion though non of you are qualified to have a "valid" opinion.
I'm a septic as to whether CO2 causes Global Warming. The fact the I don't see any "Official Study" to prove 100% one way or another leaves me unconvinced either way - but that's my opinion.
I also have never seen a video which proves that Global warming is truly happening - therefore my inclination is to believe the status quo and lean in the direction that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
No proof either way - leave it alone - again my unqualified opinion.


You're a septic?? Aerobic or leech line??

^^By the way, agree with your personal insights 100%-It's dumb-asses who believe either way-everything is as it should be.

Here's my conclusion after watching the entire video:

That narrator's voice annoys me so much I want to punch him in the teeth.

I'll quickly add that the question of gravity is pretty much set. Newtonian physics works, as long as we're in greater than atom size, and Space Curvature works for the rest (and the newtonian part) basically. (As far as I know, I'm not a physicist.)
>> ^Psychologic:

I definitely question those things... not whether they exist, but what their underlying mechanics are. As far as I am aware, the exact nature of gravity (for example) is still uncertain.
Likewise, I am not proposing that the climate is not changing. I do want to understand why it changes though, and I have to get beyond that before I can even begin to know whether or not I agree with projections for the future.
If I had to pick sides for some reason, then I would side with the consensus. I have no reason to doubt it. That wouldn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity though... I like to know how stuff works. If someone asked me whether or not I could explain how much of an effect humans have on the climate then I would have to answer "no", and that bothers me.
Disagree with the video all you want, but don't think that it represents me. It's just something I posted to start a discussion.

>> ^dystopianfutu
retoday:
You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?
Why defy science on this lone issue?

Moving this video to Psychologic's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chingalera.