So, the reason weather fluctuates from climate is...SQUIRREL!!

*documentaries

Adding video to channels (Documentaries) - requested by ant.

Science is making falsifiable predictions, and learning from them when they are falsified. Climate models have never done this.

Weather models, on the other hand, have become more and more useful the weather modelers are held to account, and learn from experience.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

What kind of a shit for brains labels this as controversy ?

Who wouldnt?
Only totalitarian hypocrites.

To label "climate change" as a controversy is the same as labeling gravity as a controversy.
Even the question whether the climate change that we are undeniably experiencing right now is human induced, human accelerated or has nothing whatsoever to do with humans is not that much of a controversy as over 97% of 12.000 peer revied papers were arguing for a human cause.

You are incorrect. That's all that need be said.

This is not a controversy, unless your god told you it was...

Tyson is so good at easily and simply explaining science in a way even those without an interest in it can understand. I think it's the primary reason for Cosmos' success. How many minds have been changed on things like Climate Change and Evolution because he clearly and simply explained them. More than a few I'd wager.

...and reasonable people that have more 'faith' in facts and science than they do in some political pundit's propaganda.

Its really sad to see that so many people have been indoctrinated so well. But thats nothing new in human history. It just hurts that it still happens in such a time (the age of information) and in the name of science. Climate saving is first and foremost about money, which makes it a political and economical agenda. Else everyone would simply be planting trees, instead of actually hacking them down to make space for "climate saving technology" AKA bio-fuel.

Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories, but your "facts" generate a LOT of money and security for many different people who didnt have that much money and security before and who see themselves in a very dangerous situation, because more and more indoctrinated people want their jobs too, to be a world-saving hero. So they need even more money and more panic.

Also very interesting to see how people like you see climate saving as a religion, without even noticing the similarities with religion. "Ohhh nooooo the world will end if... well... you dont give us your money!"
Sound familiar? No, I know it doesnt for you, but it does for intelligent people, who dont just follow "science" blindly.

I am glad that there are still scientists who stay objective and dont swim with the stream just because everyone else does. People like them were very often in history the people who were right at the end, because they could stay objective since they didnt feel the need to be part of a corrupt group that told them what is right and what is wrong and what they should do and shouldnt do. The funny thing is, exactly that deGrasse preached many times in his Cosmos show, and here it suddenly needs to be completely different.
Another hypocrite exposed.

I dunno if I agree with that last paragraph broski. Being a contrarian doesn't somehow make you right.

Not everybody can be a climate scientist. In a sense we do put our "faith" in specialists who have devoted a great deal of time to a specific area of study. I don't think this is a blind faith, the consensus opinion of scientists, has, on the whole proven to be pretty reliable. Of course they have been wrong in the past, but they are also the people who were right first. The nature of science is that when somebody with a good idea emerges, backed by evidence, that challenges the prevailing opinion, it is quickly adopted to be the consensus opinion. I read what I can about the subject, I understand somewhat less. I have my own opinions on the strength of the evidence but I am more swayed by expert opinions rather than my own judgements. Does this make me a sheep? Possibly, but then all human knowledge and understanding is distributed among the herd. We could not have the technology we have had we all made ourselves our own little intellectual islands.

On money, yes I agree, I don't doubt that there is a lot of capital in pushing the global warming "agenda". I do, however, somewhat doubt that it is more than the pressure pushing from the other side. Generally, it seems to me, the powers that be want to maintain the status quo, not submit to radical change and the unpredictable chaos it brings.

You have it backwards...ignoring and denying climate change is all about money... climate saving is about surviving. It's the rare climate scientist who's fortune is tied directly to their theories...just about 3% I would guess.

'bio-fuel' is only an ecological 'neutral' if it's made from waste material, certainly not if other, more ecologically necessary things (like trees) are destroyed to create it. Everyone is NOT hacking down forests to make bio-fuel, most places have outlawed that, and many climate scientists decried it at the outset as neutral at best and terrible at it's worst.

Facts are facts, not manipulateable at all. Interpretation of the facts is easily manipulated, if one is not able to understand the facts enough to interpret them for one's self, but not if one is able to interpret them. For instance, the political right would have you believe that solar is an expensive wasteful fools errand, the political left would have you believe it's an expensive but ecologically sound and needed energy alternative...the facts are it's both relatively ecologically sound AND financially sound as a long term investment...mine has paid for itself in under 8 years with at least another 12 years of free electricity to come and I haven't been subjected to repeated blackouts like my neighbors...double win. The point being that if you allow politicos with agendas (on either side of the fence) to interpret the facts for you, as you seem to do, you'll only hear what THEY want you to hear. I interpret data for myself, and often come to different conclusions than those I hear publicly supported.

Religion is based on faith, not facts. Faith is believing something without proof or factual evidence and ignoring any factual evidence to the contrary. Science is thinking a certain thing until/unless the facts prove otherwise. Religious people often don't understand the difference, I'm a scientist. Show me full data sets and facts that disprove my current theory, I'll happily modify my theory. Show me an interpretation that attempts to disprove my theory without facts and/or data (or with cherry picked data and facts), I'll poke it full of holes and sink it in the briny deep. Put your life vest on now.

I hate to tell you, but I'm far more intelligent according to repeated testing than the average person, contrary to your insulting implication. 138 aint bad buddy, and my science degree helps too.

Those that attempt to say +-97% of climate scientists (along with near 100% of other scientists that peer review their work) are in cahoots to defraud the public in order to secure some phantom money (the implication being that they wouldn't possibly be able to make money if they didn't lie about science for some reason), and only the <3% that are paid by oil and gas companies to come up with theories that consistently benefit their benefactors are honest are simply insane or dishonest. Period.
Your analogy is false, because in it you speak of 'scientists' from a time before the scientific method was even a thing, people who based their 'theories' often on scripture, while the real scientists 'swam against the current' to support modifiable theories based on facts and data...just like climate scientists have done so successfully over the last 40+ years that they have now convinced nearly 100% of the planet that they are correct. Deniers are still floating down stream while the rest of us are swimming against their slowing current, spawning and trying to continue the species.

No hypocrisy by NGT, only your complete misunderstanding and/or misstating of the facts. Sorry.

I agree that humans are influencing climate change, but this comment completely misstates the result of the Cook report.

Quoted from the abstract:

" examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming"

32.6% of the 11,944 - that's where they indicated that 97% of the papers said that humans were either 1) responsible for 50+ % of the observed warming (a small %) or 2) influencing the climate (most of the papers). Yes, humans are influencing the climate. Are they the primary driver? Maybe, but maybe not. More work is needed.

BS science has infiltrated the mush minds.

Wikipedia: Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."

Some people believe the science, some don't. They argue. That's controversy, the argument, not the facts or falsehoods or opinions or beliefs.

The only way to defeat controversy is to have consensus. Anything less than consensus is controversy.

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

Oh and, nice holier-than-thou title for an homage to sucking DeGrasse Tyson-san's dick this Science-Friday there, Professor Chaos , two thumbs down on your cellular device while driving....

I disagree a bit with your sentiment, but I'm happy to see you taking more of a reasoned approach in your comments.

If anybody else is having as hard of a time reading this as I did, try using Glenn Becks voice, maybe with a chalk board in the background or something. Works pretty good....

I'm sorry mate, but i'm going to have to refute a bunch of this. And i hope i can do it without coming across as religious in my approach.

"Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories," Excerpt from your full quote below.

-- The facts and science are not in contention and they are not "easily manipulated simulations". What we have are conclusions made by studious people based on data collected by electronic instruments world wide. The data is statistically analysed to find trends and patterns and then those trends and patterns are separately analysed to see how likely they are. When hundreds of those studies are done, consensus is formed and that is how humans come to all the theories that you adhere to every day; such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, etc. We then construct simulations that adhere to those theories and pass different parameters into the simulation to see what the results would be in a certain amount of time. Those parameters are the things you can change, a typical parameter might be the fractional amount of greenhouse gases per cubic metre or something like that, change in volume of polar ice per day perhaps. Thousands of studies analyse thousands of different parameter values and conclusions are drawn from the whole. That is why so many scientists now believe in climate change - because over thousands of scientific studies, the conclusions have pointed overwhelmingly and convincingly to bad news for humans.

I can't dispute your accusation that they are "based on theories". I have yet to meet a person that preferred to have their facts based on anything other than theories. A theory is a collection of ideas relating to a certain topic that are based on independent principles. The alternative is to pin words to a dartboard and throw blindfolded to construct facts. Or perhaps have a floor covered with words and let sacred chickens run round shitting our facts out for us. I'd prefer to use independent principles and the best logic we have available to us.

Please read this bit in particular
Scientists are not tricking or fooling anyone, there is no money in it for a scientist. If they try to lie, they are ridiculed by the rest of the scientists. If you spend 3 years at any decent university doing any science then you will discover that the scientific method is pretty sacred to scientists because it's the only way the field progresses.

BUT BUT BUT politicians get hold of the studies and lie to you about what they mean or how best to solve the problems they illuminate. They want your money, and they manipulate the science to get your money. They can do that because most people are not scientists, and need someone to explain it to them. So my advice is that you do not choose politicians to do that job, but instead use independent adherents to the scientific method who choose to dedicate their lives to scientific study - like Neil de Grasse Tyson who speaks as a scientist... and if he did not, his reputation within the scientific community would be in tatters, and other budding scientists like myself (and others) in this community would be highlighting just how full of shit he is.

So, are scientists lying to us, or are politicians lying to us? What seems more likely?

I don't feel gravity is ever a good comparison because gravity always points out the opposite of anyone trying to say something is settled.

I'm sure you know this, but for those that don't.

When the Newtonian model of gravity was postulated it answered some unexplained phenomena. Even though it was mainly right, it wasn't totally right.

Along comes Einstein and he proposes a couple of neat new hypothesis that when verified answered some of the shortcomings people had found after a while in Newton's hypothesis.

We moved a little closer to the truth.

At this point in time we haven't actually observed a graviton. It remains elusive. And more to the point, our model (theory if you like) of gravity may change and things like the graviton may not exist at all.

In summary, science points to what is the most correct explanation of what we observe at a given point in time. It is rarely settled and almost never "right" or "true", just "more right" or "more true" than what has passed before.

I think the parallel with gravity is that although the exact cause is debatable, the effect isn't.

If gravity were to be discussed like climate change is then we'd have people arguing about whether or not a ball will fall downwards if dropped, not about whether a graviton is the cause. The right would be arguing that the 'scientists' only observe the ball going down because they're throwing it down.

We're living under a cliff and rocks are starting to fall down on us with alarming regularity, far more often than they used to. We should be building shelters to hide from them or moving away, or strengthening the cliff to stop more rocks from falling but we aren't because we don't know if the graviton exists or not.

I just don't understand the controversy. The earth is warming, and it's going to have a catastrophic effect on a lot of the life on the planet, including us. We could potentially do something about it, or at the very least try to do something about it. But instead there's all this fighting and bitterness.

I'd resign myself to the fact that the human race are a bunch of fucking idiots and we'll get what we deserve but six months ago my wife gave birth to our first child. Every time I look at him I think about the world we're going to leave for him and his kids and realise what a bunch of arseholes we're being. I would love to know what catastrophic things the deniers think will happen if we do try to do something about climate change. What could be worse?

But surely that's a good thing. We revise our explanation of the same observable effect based on evidence and experimentation, and our older predictions were still correct and reliable in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

It confirms that science and the scientific method works and that we should trust it because it keeps us as safe as we can be based on our latest and most up to date understanding.

Thank you robbersdog49, your reply said everything I meant to say only more concisely than I would have managed.

To your fears for the future of our children: I fear that our children will one day realize what a bunch of assholes we have been to the environment.
Then they will bitch about our stupidity while screewing over the environment on a much bigger scale than we ever did.
Stupidity tends to repeat itself throughout history.
Our ability to protect the environment has grown through history to the same extend as our ability to wreck it. Take a look around what abillity we use to the fullest .....

You can demonstrate the effect of carbon dioxide on climate as easily as dropping a ball from your hand? People know that balls will drop because the see it for themselves, not because a former physicist and his dog say so.

In actual fact, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years, and the climate models do not help to explain this. They are useless for explaining or predicting changes on the scale of decades, and it's crazy to expect them to somehow predict changes much further in the future.

Warmism, from the start, has been based on obfuscation, concealment of data, dodgy statistics, and overcomplicated computer models that add very little to insight into the real physical phenomena.

Remember the hockey stick? That went the way of Carl Sagan's nuclear winter, which ought to provide a cautionary tale for Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Your child's future will have many problems, one of them being depletion of the fossil fuel supplies that we have come to rely upon for sustenance. Climate will change, as it always has, and some of that change will be caused by CO2.
Climate science could be helpful; it's a pity that it has been distorted into a completely political exercise, and a shame for science generally, which stands to lose a great deal of public trust.

...oh, did I forget to mention the dick-ass title of this inflammatory offering??

If that's what he meant then that would be a better comparison (but I still think it is just not the best comparison because of what I wrote).

Unfortunately we're all arseholes one way or another.

I think that there does not even need to be a mention of adverse climate change (anthropogenic or not) for us to be doing the right thing by the current environment and our future environment.

Yes. Most definitely a good thing. But it is something a lot of people don't understand about science. And if one doesn't understand that our knowledge is limited and most likely only partially true, then one won't strive to surpass our limits and get closer to the truth.

yeah? well consider me Siftler.

*nochannel

*science
*eco
*education
*documentaries

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Documentaries, Eco, Controversy, Education) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by ChaosEngine. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Thank you for that perfect example.
Not that I feel any joy seeing this. It proves me right, and I would give a lot to be wrong.

Well, then I have good news for you.... not only are you wrong now, but you were wrong before, and you'll undoubtedly continue to be wrong for the sake of being contrarian. What are you going to give me?

The irony is I wish you were right. It would be fantastic not to have to deal with climate change, but there's that whole unfortunate "reality" thing that you seem to have an issue with.

You have just proved your totalitarian character (aside from your totalitarian title) and then tell me you wish you were wrong?
lol.. The audacity... Very funny. Please... You bathe in self-righteousness and arrogance. I know you love yourself more than anything, but there are people who dont fall for your bullshit, because they are smarter than you (think).

But please, continue to make a fool out of yourself, you dont seem to have an issue with it either, since you dont grasp what I said.

thank you. You're still wrong

Of course, ignorance, paired with irrelevant crap to reassure yourself.
I almost pity you.
Good bye.

Aww, I'm sorry. Please come back.

I want to hear more of your interesting and not at all biased opinion about how thousands of people way smarter than you are engaged in a massive conspiracy to.... er.... hang on.... I always get lost at this bit. Anyway, please continue.




Just kidding, you're still wrong.

In actual fact, you're talking bollocks.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm