На главнуюНовости и политикаПохожее видеоЕще от: CNN

Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science

Оценок: 16452 | Просмотров: 1030806
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says lawmakers and the media cherry pick scientific papers to reinforce political ideals on climate change and says it's irresponsible to create public policy while ignoring the scientific community's consensus.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Текстовые комментарии (7448)
NOBBERT (1 час назад)
Consensus debunked long ago, TAX TAX TAX
Skiddles 2000 (4 часа назад)
Abraham Lincoln signed something in 1963? Neil used to be a great scientist to listen to, but it is too funny when he tells me that I should leave Houston when the weatherman tells me. They are always so wrong.....I guess the real goal of this interview was to promote his book......
mike white (1 день назад)
It is not settled Science. What is settled is all the cheating and inflating of numbers by NASA , NOAA and so many Professors. Oh , wait , nobody is reading this and I am not writing it because according to all the studies 30 Years ago We are all dead now because We did not act. Look it up. Now again We are being told We have 10 yrs. to act. These scientists are fighting over more grants. They are all registered Democrats in the USA and similar in other nations. BULLSHIT. Hurricanes are no different now. Same warmup in 14-1500 A.D. Russian climate models show slight warming because they use uninflated numbers. Satellite temp. measurement shows sliver of warming. Natural cycle. ( New info ignored by the hysterics) and please do not tell Me all deniers are Oil co. scientists and Trumpers. That is another lie.
TheProfanebeast (1 день назад)
So many Ignorant comments in here. pathetic feeble minded babboons.
omegapointil (2 дня назад)
But ….Hillary.
cruzan mongoose (2 дня назад)
Climate has been changing for millions of years without mans help, cave men did not drive SUV's
Frisbee 'n' Cookies (3 дня назад)
It was the mammoths endlessly farting that caused the previous ice age to melt away, I worked it out when I was high as a friggin kite one night while talking science through my arse. Now gimme money and calling out my bullshit is ignorant as it's not bullshit it's mammoth farts you 'DENIER!' Sound about right? 🤔
Ken gilmore (4 дня назад)
Lets see who am I going to believe... A pop scientist talking out of his field or a real scientist that supports his viewpoint with facts. Neil Tyson is a hack astrophysicist not a climate scientist.
Orangeman Bad (5 дней назад)
I would have liked to hear Neil deGrasse Tyson explain why all the climate alarmist predictions have been so absolutely wrong.
Robert Widdowson (5 дней назад)
*A Closer Look at the Social and Cultural Network* Does anyone know of a study that looks at how group think among climatologist has influenced the general direction the climate change community has taken over the long run? Like every profession, climatologists have an official standard that qualifies who is/is not a member of their profession. They have academic departments at universities and colleges and official journals that espouse their collective values and views, and academic and editorial policies that determine which professors are hired/rejected and which studies, essays, articles and reports are published/rejected. Climatologists meet annually or more frequently at conferences and symposiums, they know each other, are friends and professional associates with one another. Plus, there are hundreds or millions of dollars available for access to any climatologist who wishes to toe the party line. All of this strongly suggests that there are enormous cultural and social pressures on climatologists to conform their individual views to the group standard -- or else. *The Power of Shaming* The fact that the majority of climate changers use shame to silence the opposition suggests that, at the very least, the climate changers lack a solid character, but furthermore, it indicates that their argument may not be rock solid either. If the climate change argument is rock solid, than smear campaigns against those who oppose it is unnecessary. The fact that smear campaigns exist and are a significant part of the public face of climate change says a lot. Attacking your opponent suggests that there is something(s) fundamentally wrong with their own theory. On a separate, but related note -- One often hears advocates of climate change stress that the majority of climatologists all say the same thing, therefore, they must be telling the truth. But anyone who's taken Logic 101 knows that such an argument is a logical fallacy. A majority doesn't determine the truth. A majority may hold the truth, but that's not the same thing, and it's not how the argument is often framed!
Dzoni Bravo (5 дней назад)
All my life I read sciantists said you should eat this, or not eat that, or this is healthy... And you what? I found out that they are not sciantists! It was lie! Why? Because media wanted for me to hear or listen them, not real scientists! And media lies about everything! So now I belive nobody.
Ray Mattyns (5 дней назад)
We have the Technology to transform this planet into a death star,
n3Cr0ManCeD (6 дней назад)
People's biases concerning science are mind numbing. The same people who cry that climate science isn't settled science will not hesitate to allow a doctor to cut into their brain to remove a tumor, despite the fact that we know far more about climate science than we do about brain science. It is sad that there are so many people that only believe science when it confirms their biases but reject it when it refutes their bias.
Burgess Park (5 дней назад)
but exactly the same arguement stands for climate alarmists the evidence for AGW is thin at best. A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually Abba Eban
Leśny (6 дней назад)
His thinking is true, only if there is no carrot and a stick in science. Who pays scientists for their work? The same entity will shape the results. I would like to see a scientific, maybe crowd funded, paper on this matter, because from what I see, there is a stick for being a skeptic, and a carrot for being an supporter. If this is true, how is that scientific?
James (6 дней назад)
When the day comes when all scientists agree on global warming that is a day it will be too late to do anything about it
Iron Swan (6 дней назад)
what a dipshit its going to be another 100 years before we can prove if its caused by a greater extent by humans or if its mostly a natural cooling/warming cycle like its been since the dawn of motherfucking time ,and if we can even slow it down at this point will next to impossible,but either way they will tax the fuck out of us and more than likely waste most of it,what a joke if the world was cooling they would make up a reason to tax us for that too,its all bullshit
MidnightStorm (7 дней назад)
Man all i need to do is fuckin pass my chemistry exam....
Faith Esprit (8 дней назад)
If we didn't mess with the earths resources and atmosphere out of fear of loss, control and power, at such a ridiculous large scale, we need not confuse ourselves about anything...nature will continue to do what it intended to do...
Okidoki (9 дней назад)
There is no consensus. The IPCC report states clearly "likely" nothing like 100% clear. And even that is on the small portion of CO2 that is actually man-made. That's why there's still discussion after 35 years mind you. 35 years in which ALL the models of the IPCC and her predictions were wrong. Talking about cherry picking. Innovations and trying to reduce pollution are good things, no one will argue that. The biggest point of argue is the fact that this is presented as an apocalyptic scenario, non proven, that already cost billions in those 35 years and will easely go up to trillions in the coming years. The result of those policies have a huge impact on developing countries and the poorest people on the planet. So yeah, we better be damn sure we find out what exactly the impact of human induced CO2 is. The problem is that after these 35 years, the whole apparatus build around "climate change" will try as hard as it can to claim it's own existence, even if there is no truth. Hence the shift from: acid rain, to greenhouse effect, to climate change. New titles and subjects to keep the money flowing to this apparatus. So what do? Logically? Yes, just innovate, look for safe new means of energy and support that. Most importantly, we need to help build that kind of energy plants in developing countries because they will lag behind. And those too are crucial if we want to reduce pollution. But don't cry wolf for another 35 years please.
Lorenzo Blum (9 дней назад)
Could we discuss about the money and the funding involving man made GW theory, and eventually political issues... I started to freak out about the implications of industries and pollution in the late 70s (funny how we only talk about climate change and not about all sorts of pollutions so much anymore). And now I'm starting to wonder about the real motivation of some scientists... A lot of money is involved...
Hawkeye (10 дней назад)
So What’s his solution, oh yeah, carbon tax 😂
FrenchFriesMafia (11 дней назад)
4:53 ? TF is he okay?
R Truth (12 дней назад)
https://youtu.be/Hd2jA0lT8N0
R Truth (12 дней назад)
Keep sleeping when the nwo takes over and the antichrist rises you will be the first people to take the mark of the beast, because you refuse to wake up and would rather keep hitting the snooze alarm on the truth. https://youtu.be/Hd2jA0lT8N0
R Truth (12 дней назад)
Wake up people https://www.thesiriusreport.com/technology/list-us-patents-related-weather-modification/
R Truth (12 дней назад)
So many people sleep in the comment section it's just sad. I mean you guys dont get it do you? There is no global warming it is all weather modification and they have been doing it for decades. Look http://www.weathermodification.com/index.php they dont even need to hide it anymore people are so stupid nowadays they believe everything scientists say without fact checking.
Zephan Mayeda (12 дней назад)
Neil is a fantastic and wonderful person who should be declared the emperor of the world
RichMartin FreeweightsAndSpeed. (12 дней назад)
Go Neil!
Juju jujuria (13 дней назад)
those that don't believe in climate change should be dragged out onto the streets and shot in the head
robert hicks (13 дней назад)
That's just more proof that this is a religion. Just because people do not follow your religion doesn't mean they do not believe the climate isn't changing. We just follow the science that proves that co2 is not causing the warming.
JC Sendon. (13 дней назад)
The so called settled science that has predicted doom since the 1970’s but yet ALL their Predictions have never come true! I believe in science, proven science not 99% of all scientists agree? I am still waiting for the Polar Bears to die out? The seas rising so much that our coasts will disappear, the ice caps will disappear? Big storms have happened since the start of time... This is pure BS!!
Harold Guernsey (14 дней назад)
Wow, Tyson is incredibly ignorant on this subject! He accuses others of cherry-picking, and then does the same thing with his examples of a hurricane, numbers of deaths, and fifty inches of rain! What an idiot! Comparing “global-warming” pseudo-science to Einstein's theory of relativity is absurd and childish! A stupidly quoted scientific “consensus” based on a ludicrous and absolutely false tally of “scientific” papers is fraudulent. He asks, “How do you establish a scientific truth other than by looking at a consensus of scientific experiments and observations?” You do this by PROOF! There is nothing in science that uses “settled consensus” for proof.” Tyson is in a stupid rush to call for foolish government policy when the “global-warming” hypothesis was disproved years ago; and it is incredible that he is oblivious to all the “global-warming” fraud that has taken place over three decades. Only those who are exploiting “global-warming” as Tyson with his book, and those who are easily deceived still claim to believe in “global-warming.” This “debate” has left Tyson behind long ago, as his arguments are antiquated and irrelevant. Finally, Tyson makes false and exploitative claims that there has been significant rise in sea levels, and that there is proof that they will rise catastrophically in the future. Of course Zakaria never brings any intelligence to a discussion and is regularly out of step with reality and reason, but in this example he's even worse, playing his part as the incurious, bobble-headed sycophant.
JOE JOE (14 дней назад)
Science says who ever pays your bills will effect what you say in front of the camera .
jet li (14 дней назад)
Well to me, he agrees that WE'RE changing the climate. So sad. I used to trust him.
Jim Brannan (14 дней назад)
Nice condescending explanation. In two years those cities will be freezing in a mini ice age and you people will be a joke looking for work. We shouldn't be planning for flooding coastlines, we should be planning for famine.
Intellectual Trumpster (14 дней назад)
Deniers are not against science. Alarmists are.
Intellectual Trumpster (14 дней назад)
Science is not based on consensus
stmarriott (14 дней назад)
wow, the comments for this page are impressive. I do have a question for the deniers though. Why do you not accept that climate change is happening. I mean to you personally. What skin do you have in the game, or are you scared. Were you born a petrol head and you're gonna die one. So some straightforward objections would be welcome. "Its all a load of tosh" is not an explanation ...
robert hicks (13 дней назад)
@stmarriott "Why do you not accept that climate change is happening." Everyone accepts the climate is changing. What people do not accept is that co2 is the cause. "What skin do you have in the game" its called carbon tax. Its a method of redistribution of wealth from the middle and poor classes of the US to other countries and to people like al gore. "some straightforward objections would be welcome" REAL peer review journals have articles that go counter to the pal review magazines that climate fraudsters use.
RonThePhotoGuy (15 дней назад)
Abraham Lincoln: Feb 12, 1809 - Apr 15, 1865 (age 56). 31,487 real scientists have signed onto: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advancement of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." And, unlike the nebulous 97%, the names of the 31,487, are actually available and even listed more or less in alphabetical order! Does anyone else find it curious we never hear about this group? If this group is the 3%, then the group forming the 97% must really be massive! Every animal exhales carbon dioxide, there are places where it pours out of the ground, sea water contains lots of it, and plants require it to survive. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a necessary gas, which at 400 ppm is in short supply. Do you want to claim there is climate change? I'm in agreement. Do you want to claim there is global warming? Where I live used to be buried under a couple of miles of ice, so I will agree with that too. Do you want to claim man has caused climate change? If you cut down all the trees and cover the area in pavement, that will probably increase the local heating since the trees reflected energy but the parking lot absorbs energy all day and radiates it all night, so I'll agree with that too. Do you want to claim that increasing CO2 from 250 ppm to 1600 ppm will cause Earth's temperature to rapidly rise several degrees and cause the polar ice caps to melt and flood everything? I haven't seen any proof for that. There is evidence that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. There is evidence CO2 levels rise after a temperature increase, and remain high for a period of time after cooling of Earth's temperature. There is evidence the computer models using CO2 to bolster alarm have been inaccurate relative to observed data during the period covered by the model's predictions. So, I don't think "CO2 causes global warming" has been proven. The science around CO2 and warming is far from settled.
earthpet (15 дней назад)
Consensus on which lottery numbers to choose has zero effect on which lottery numbers will be chosen. Reasoning by consensus is unreasonable.
Agustín Bertelli (4 дня назад)
We all can check if water boils at 100°c which it does (i'm not american so i don't know your temperature scale is). But we can't all check data from global climate or for example gravtitational waves or black holes, etc. But researchers with very expensive instruments can. So If from 100 groups of researchers 97 find out that black holes have x property. That 97% is a real important number. The other 3% could have gotten the things wrong by a lot of different reasons. It's just less probable that the 97% have made a mistake. That's the consensus we are talking here, it's peer reviewed scientific results. That's why consensus WHEN talking about the scientific community IS important. It's not the same with a religious group for example as Galileo could tell. Please don't take this as that i'm trying to deceive you, you may have a valid counterargument. We can learn from each other.
Islamisthecultofsin (15 дней назад)
I attended a presentation that showed the temperature sensors used to show that the earth was warming. He asked himself how the areas had changed/developed over all of these years. The result was laughable in that what was once a woodland was now a black asphalt parking lot. And each of the sensors were like this. One sensor was on a rooftop and now it has an air conditioner blowing hot air on it! This is called "bad science". You don't make policy on bad science.
Marco Quiroz (13 дней назад)
There is scientists and then there is climate change alarmists. There is science and then there is Darwinism. The two are NOT the same. Climate change alarmists love to be counted amongst real scientists, but they are not. It’s like a dentists that want to be considered real doctors and counted amongst a community of neuro-surgeons. Not the same thing.
Joseph Peters (15 дней назад)
Lots of jobs. Lots of motivation . Lots of people. Still dont make sense.
mike glover (15 дней назад)
I'll tell ya what is settled Mr. Degrass ... Jesus is the way the truth and the life ! That is settled ! It's your choice Neil . All of this is just hot wind .
Charli’s Channel (16 дней назад)
CNN has lost all credibility since it gave Don Lemmon air time.
grand unified (17 дней назад)
Why am i thinking you will never see this on fox news
grand unified (11 дней назад)
+robert hicks yup more conspiracy theory Your like a broken record you're obviously not a scientist so you're just regurgitating what conspiracy theorists have told you just like flat earthers and creationists
robert hicks (11 дней назад)
"97 % of them are not in on the conspericy" Have you asked all of them? No, no one has. Instead  you go by a report created by a liberal political communication professor claiming that 97% support DESPITE the fact that his own report says only 41 out of 14000 papers EXPLICITLY supported agw. Over 300 explicitly said it was not. 64% did not even state an opinion, so he used his BIASED judgement to claim the rest did. When it is pointed out that 64% did not state an opinion, politicians say "that not a problem, everyone knows there is a consensus". When you ask how they know there is a consensus, they quote cooks report. So what it comes down to is cook could say the 64% that didn't state an opinion was part of 97% consensus because cooks report proved there was a 97% consensus. Do you see that is nothing but political spin doctoring?
robert hicks (11 дней назад)
We can agree that any politician has a political agenda. EVERY news agency has its agenda. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its wrong. You have to research the data yourself. For instance, when cnn and fox said the opposite on the caravan, I looked up what other countries were saying. I was trained by the military to recognize propaganda, so when I see some of them pushing the lie that its about women looking for asylum, I have to question how much they are telling us about the truth. When I find other countries showing videos of thousands of men pushing past border guards, I have to wonder how lawful they are. Have you ever asked (as an example) how it is all these thousands of people have enough food to eat every day? 10000 people require 30000 meals a day and someone has to organize having the food where they end up. You have people riding trucks cars vans and more, yet they all get to the same place at the same time. THAT takes alot of organizing. So who is doing it? I saw an article (can find it right now) written in one of the us enemies news papers bragging how this was being done by socialist groups. CNN, and other news organization say it just happens, like magic. They also ignore data about the climate and push the carbon tax as if it is a magic bullet that will stop temperature climbs when studies done by scientist say that 100 trillion dollars will not do enough to be noticeable in 100 years. YET that much would destroy the economy of the free world. YET CNN and other organizations don't report that.
grand unified (11 дней назад)
+robert hicks yes 97 % of them are not in on the conspericy. Your using the same tactics flatearthers & creationist use
grand unified (11 дней назад)
+robert hicks but we can agree both your partys have a selfish agenda . Im conservative in my country but there not as far right
4Real Science (18 дней назад)
I like Tyson. He's a great actor.
generaLRager (18 дней назад)
I'm not saying Climate Change isn't effected by Humans.. but to say its purely our fault and we have to address it to improve or prevent it is silly talk, I'm not hearing any science arguments about how we fix this problem. All I hear and see is that Climate Change is real, but I'm failing to see anything solid put forward, like how do you propose to combat it, will what you suggest make a difference, will what you suggest be feasible? is it something the entire world can do, because remember for the likes of the western countries who are advanced and able to develop the likes of wind/solar and nuclear, a lot of other countries are not and require fossil fuels just as we did to advance, taking it away from them would prevent them having economic growth required to build and sustain a country. Also the sheer amount of Wind and Solar farms required to compensate for Fossil Fuel Power Plants would cause more pollution than it prevents due to the construction materials used and the power required to construct them. Only real clean alternative is Nuclear, but majority of the Left leaning people reject Nuclear, despite its fatality rates being significantly lower than everything else in comparison. One last thing; When you pay for scientists to study Climate Change with relatively no limit on their expenditure its hard to expect them to turn around and say "yeah, nah we good, take all this research money and my job away from me now" people who have vested interests in the results aren't exactly believable in my eyes.
robert hicks (13 дней назад)
I have tons of thing, so please be specific about what you want to know.
generaLRager (13 дней назад)
+robert hicks Show me all the things, I'm genuinely interested in reading them all. In this day and age I've learnt not to trust anything, people have their agendas and will make up things to promote it, and we just don't know how deep it goes, with the revelations that's come out of the US in the last 2 years nothing would surprise me anymore.
robert hicks (13 дней назад)
Science on politics? No, I don't think there is any science to politics. But if you want things from REAL peer review science specific journal, which means they are reviewed by people of the same discipline, I can give you plenty of evidence it is not man made (as compared to Mann made). Ask for any one of the talking points and I can direct you to actual science against it.
generaLRager (13 дней назад)
+robert hicks Do we have any scientific sources on this, I don't generally like going on one youtube clip for my information, as truthful as it may or may not be.
robert hicks (13 дней назад)
"will it actually do anything" https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/cop21-climate-agreement-an-eye-watering-amount-of-money-for-virtually-no-return/ The reality is, 99% of climate change is natural. Carbon tax is nothing more than a method of redistribution of wealth.
Mike Gerrie (18 дней назад)
I'm just glad I will likely still be living when they find out the so called consensus is proven utterly false.
Miranda Elaine (18 дней назад)
It’s absurd to say that scientists all agreeing on a topic somehow indicates that topic is settled. In the 1700s, neurologists “proved” the cerebellum was solely involved with motor control and served no higher level function. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the cerebellum plays a major role in executive function
gmcjetpilot (20 дней назад)
The only truth is at beginning he knows nothing of climate and is a propagandist. Yes climate changes in cycles not in doubt. How much of it is man-made and due to CO2 and how much is normal natural variations and water vspor? What is crazy is making public policy on group think and propaganda. Neil is an idiot, hypocritical shill. He says one heavy rain in Texas is indication of catastrophic changes (shot across the bowl? Fear monger not science. Ha ha. Sea rise 30 feet? Heard that for 30 years, totally wrong, nothing happened. THERE IS NO 97% CONSCIENCES...TOTAL ILLOGICAL APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. What are we talking about agreeing on? Neil does not say. Only 0.5% scientist think temperature rise (normal cycles for 1000's of years) is a man made. A tiny 0.8 degree rise in temperature over 130 years is meaninglessness. It was 2C degree hotter in middle ages than today (less than 1000 yrs ago). Sun is going into 61 year low cycle. Temperatures will drop. To ignore facts that Antarctica is getting colder and ice sheet thicker is folly. To ignore the fact trees and plants breath and thrive with CO2, exhale O2 and how resiliant out environment is and how stable the weather has been is misrepresenting and manipulating (lying) an out all the data (and not dismissing the so called 3%). He does not point out what is in dispute just makes grandstatements. NOT one fact or science.came out his mouth but the word "SCIENCE !" https://youtu.be/mtHreJbr2WM https://youtu.be/UE6QxBaIEv8 https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ https://youtu.be/yqZGgaZaXig
Dan Casey (20 дней назад)
As someone who is an astrophysicist you would think that he would take into account changes in the earth's orbit, precession of the poles, changes in the solar cycles, etc. Is human activity causing change to the environment? The answer is most likely yes, but how much is the effect in the grand scheme when taking the other variables into account. It's possible human activity might minimize the affect of the grand solar minimum we are approaching. Seems more research that can take all variables into account is needed.
Michael Adamonis (20 дней назад)
climate change always happens. many things contribute to it. fossil fuels are a very small part. but there is money in hype and BS.
Elias W.H (20 дней назад)
Listend a bit to Dr. Patrick Moore Ecology PHD. and told me "consensus" in science is a no no word.
RockAristote (21 день назад)
Sorry Neil, asking question is the only way to do real and good science. Have you never heard of dialectic ?
Jollyprez (21 день назад)
"This is a knowwwnnnnnn correspondence." - Tyson almost gave himself away, but he caught himself before saying "This is an known CORRELATION." - And, of course, correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Also, to excoriate his opponents for cherry picking data when that's exactly what Michael Mann and others of his ilk do, is incredible hubris. Tyson is not a scientist. Like Bill Nye, he's science-ISH.
eric brufatto (22 дня назад)
Ironically, Tyson is one of the duped pseudo-scientist "cherry pickers" he is criticizing. He has not studied the data. Tyson talks through his hat, he is not a climate scientist, like Bill Nye, he has become TV personality.
Andrew Martin (22 дня назад)
the Greeks in the pass they already worried about the climate change !!!!! why are we worried about ?????
Double Dog Dare (22 дня назад)
I Love watching fake news!
Robert Widdowson (22 дня назад)
*Religious Mania Much?* Many environmentalists and all Climate Change Promoters are apocalyptic in their vision of the future. They exude a religious zeal and many express a religious mania. And like every religious zealot, they freak out if you show any skepticism towards their worldview in general and their beliefs on the climate in particular. In keeping with extreme religious zealots, they want to excommunicate everyone who doesn't immediately and absolutely embrace their doctrine wholeheartedly. In fact, some will damn you and even wish you dead if you question their belief system. For the zealot, there is no middle ground; it's all or nothing.
Evagelos Drinis (23 дня назад)
If we have the capacity to change climate then we have the capacity to move cities ancient people have why can't we?
Evagelos Drinis (23 дня назад)
This nit wit talks about deaths during hurricanes the idiot does not even mention better building codes.
Evagelos Drinis (24 дня назад)
A self proclaimed Alarmist and now has been accused of being a sexual predator and we should trust this character.
Darth Vyris (24 дня назад)
I may not be the smartest person in the world but why not take a satellite photo showing the ice caps melting away? I really don't think we can really do anything to stop it since China and India don't care how much they pollute.
Ned Walport (24 дня назад)
Hey Neil, if it is settled science why have all the dire predictions of the past 30 years been completely wrong? The Maldives are still above water. The arctic ice is still there, and plenty of it. Frequency of hurricanes and tornados haven't changed. Please stop your bullshit and provide some real empirical data and a climate model that isn't proven wrong year after year after year. This former scientist has turned into a media ass clown just like David Suzuki. CO2 is a GREEN gas and the earth and all the creatures and plants on earth could use a lot more of it.
Katie Toilolo (24 дня назад)
Man made global warming is the biggest scam since VACCINES!!
Peter Rasch (25 дней назад)
This whole climate ruse is just too complicated. I suggest we all simply hole up in our apartments, turn up the air conditioning, and order pizza, as needed. Oh, and read the Bible until Jesus' return.
Kunda Van Riel (25 дней назад)
26-12-2018 ppm 360
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
The weather is due to our magnetic sheilds going down cosmic rays r causeing magma uptake.n bad weather n this lier knows it!!!!!!
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
The sealevel is shrinking ....total lyes
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
All u do is cherrypick your info....there is no proof of solar warming and this lyer knows it....carbon credits...??? Lmfao...ya ....
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
Co2 is plant food neil...were dis u go to school
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
Grand solar minimum!!!!!!!
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
More sea ice then ever... More ice in arctic then ever......greenland way more snowfall n ise then ever in recent past....neil k ows the truth....how can he not????
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
Neil u guys cherrypick bullshit to let people hear...show them the.grand solar minimum charts...show them the.truth u lying shill....u know there is no datta that shows global warming.all your projected graphs r off like 400 percent..lmfao
George Hallam (25 дней назад)
This guy is an astro phisisist..he knows the.sun is entering a solar minimum..he is paid to lie at u
theorist 10 (26 дней назад)
Tldr for dummies Evolution is a proven fact Climate change is a proven fact too And if you f-ing say the earth is flat we should strap you to a rocket , fly you high enough to see the curvature and NUKE YOU OUT OF THE SKY We need to stop wasting time bickering over facts and move humanity forward ffs
Johnny James (27 дней назад)
This man is a liar period. Consensus has no place in science. See realclimatescience.com
Bronson Lucas (28 дней назад)
No it does not require scientific consensus. All it takes is a little time to trace where the funding is going. This anthropogenic global warming scam has totally destroyed my faith in science.
Kevin Waters (28 дней назад)
It is grossly dishonest of Tyson to feign some “ scientific” unity on the question of climate change. To compare this “ modelling” to Einstein’s work is revolting. His credibility is seriously eroded.Seriously : he is doing the cherry picking ALL through this item.Incidentally , recover from what ? I live in Australia , we seem to be missing this “ global” crisis. Why is that sir?
Cexi Lai (28 дней назад)
All life on Earth dies when Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere fall bellow 250 parts per million . Prior to commencement of industrialization CO2 levels got to 300 ppm. The worlds atmosphere needs about 1,500 ppm for life , particularly vegetation , in the biosphere to flourish .
Alex Meyer (25 дней назад)
Last time CO2 was below 250ppm, we had pretty much the same life on earth as we have today. Thus your claim is invalid.
green alien (29 дней назад)
I love him . Sexy daddy !
John Powell (29 дней назад)
Mr. Tyson I think I heard you say that the 97% was the consensus when in fact the 97% is actually only 3%. The media and the bureaucrats are shoving this global warming nonsense is true when in fact the next ice age is almost upon us if you look at the paleoclimate charts.
dan patterson (30 дней назад)
Climate change deniers are so god dam stupid! The idea that we have these people just dragging us back is so tiring and boring!
Uqpaa Handy (30 дней назад)
Why does this have to be pollitical. This is what reframes me from being on the right. This should be extinguished from conservatism... Because conservatives believe in old Western values, and challenging old values comes confusing to them. This is why I'm centrist, not left leaning or right leaning
Ty Curtin (1 месяц назад)
Tyson....you contradict yourself. You complain about cherry picking.....and then you do just that by pointing a one or two hurricanes. They are not getting stronger. That's indisputable. Stop fucking lying.
Ty Curtin (1 месяц назад)
Simple thermodynamics says that a warming world will make storms LESS severe. The warming planet will have a smaller temperature difference between the poles and the equator. Because temperature differences will be smaller, weather events will be less intense. This is simple meteorology. Just ask any meteorologist. Storms are not getting stronger. That's just people's mind playing tricks on them because there is a 24 hour news cycle covering these weather events now. No TV guys to cover the dust bowl back in the 1930's or hurricane's back in the 1930's. Think about it......hardly anyone even lived in Houston or Miami back in the 1930's because there was no air conditioning.
Ty Curtin (1 месяц назад)
"Science is never settled........PERIOD" Quantum physics certainly is not.....just one example.
majiks s (1 месяц назад)
Most of these retards in the comments say some really stupid shit
Rohan G. Nair (1 месяц назад)
I'm a right winger but the fact that people debate climate change reduces my brain cells. Climate change is real and all humans are responsible for this.
redlegagent (1 месяц назад)
You apparently fail to account for the impact of things like Faux News or websites such as (un)Breitbart.  These represent the "disinformation media" who are hardwired into industries such as the Fossil Fuel industry.  You think it is by chance that climate change denial is part of their routine lineup??  Industry and their Libertarian think tank allies employ those venues because they are ideologically aligned with their goal = reduce the impact of government + _"profit uber alles."_   So long as they can turn a dollar in the short turn = what care for future generations who will be left holding the bag.  Something new to think about.
Noises (1 месяц назад)
We could solve a lot of the world's problems by taking smartphones off people who doen't "believe" in science. They'd still be free to think whatever stupid shit they want to, they just couldn't infect the internet with their regressive neanderthal stupidity. new rule. If you question science and take religion as truth, you go back to the desert caves of the middle east where you belong. And you take your bibles with you.
Evagelos Drinis (1 месяц назад)
He is called an Alarmist Hurricanes always happen this guy is a liar
Evagelos Drinis (1 месяц назад)
This guy is an actor !
Evagelos Drinis (1 месяц назад)
What an irresponsible fraud Fake Scientist it is colder. Now 2 years in a row. 2017 and 2018 are colder than 2016
Evagelos Drinis (22 дня назад)
+Alex Meyer I respectfully disagree Spain and France in the southern med had hardly any weather stations. That heat in the 30s and 40s was not just local it scorched most of the country that is a historical fact.
Alex Meyer (23 дня назад)
+Evagelos Drinis The charts show more than enough weather stations in the 1960s in Europe to get reliable temperature records. You cherry pick a weather event that affected a few states in the US to conclude that it was hotter in 30s and 40s than today. So go ahead and talk about incomplete data lol.
Evagelos Drinis (23 дня назад)
+Alex Meyer Your chart proves as I went to 1960 the huge gaps in European coverage, the US is all red the rest of the world very poor.
Evagelos Drinis (23 дня назад)
+Alex Meyer You stated almost the whole globe which tells me that you use incomplete data in your unproven theories of man made climate change, fires, earthquakes, floods, storms, and depression.
Alex Meyer (23 дня назад)
​+Evagelos Drinis Go to https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/ Change From / To to 1960 to 1965 or whatever. See more than enough weather stations in the Southeastern and Balkans to get reliable temperature records.
Jim Harris (1 месяц назад)
LOLZ at chastising 'cherry picking' when that's what the climate zealots do. Oh, and the extrapolate temperatures and 'hide the decline'
Stephen Worley (1 месяц назад)
Following Neil's advice here are a lot of papers which indicate that the climate has a low sensitivity to CO2: http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/ Panic over, it's a non-problem. You can now safely ignore the propaganda, hysteria and doomsayers and confine them to history's bin for silly hoaxes.
Stephen Worley (24 дня назад)
+Alex Meyer You can tell by listening to the language used. "The science is settled" - meaning you will look foolish if you try to check anything for yourself and therefore there is no need to look at other factors. "97% of scientists agree" - meaning that if you voice another opinion you are being stupid and are out of step with intelligent thought. "Deniers" - this term intrinsically compares people to holocaust deniers and so places them as being wholly abominable. It also has religious overtones which are totally out of place in a scientific discussion. "Flat earthers' - those who voice contrary opinions are compared with people in the past who believed that the earth was flat. In other words that skeptics are foolish and ignorant of the 'real' science. "We've only got 10 years to save the planet" - laughable that this cry is repeated every few years and we are now well past the time that we could save the planet from the first time we heard such a claim. "The Arctic is going to be free of ice by 2014" - again it never happened and the ice is actually increasing again - look at the charts. But still we hear that prediction on a regular basis. Constant bombardment by the media (BBC in the UK) with claims such as extraordinary temperature rises in the future (up to 5 degrees C increase) - totally exaggerated from what the actual science says. "We're going to reach a tipping point" - if the climate were so sensitive to changes, the earth would not have lasted this long. Another example of 'project fear' which we are bombarded with periodically. Climate change causes greater storms. It's just not true according to the statistics. Ocean acidification damaging sea life including corals. It's just not true according to studies. Constant adjustment of past and present temperatures. They cool the past and warm the present by subtly changing how the measurements are taken. We seem to be living in the Adjustocene era. Vilification of any scientist who voices contrary opinions. They usually end up losing their jobs. Have you noticed that many scientists who cast doubts on the global warming 'science' are of the older generation - i.e. those who are retired and have their pensions and can no longer be 'punished' and have nothing to lose by speaking out. The claim that tweaking the output of CO2 can make any real difference. How have changes in CO2 in the past affected climate? Very tiny or not at all from the geological evidence. Increases in CO2 followed warmings in the past - therefore they could not be the cause. CO2 was less soluble in the warmer ocean, hence it outgassed into the atmosphere. The claim that we're warmer now than in the recent past and so it must be all our fault. Again it's just not true. Consider the Little Ice Age, Medieval warm period (Viking settlements in Greenland), Roman warm period (grapes grown in the North of England), Minoan warm period. All these warmer periods were warmer than today according to ice core measurements. It's all down to natural climate cycles. We didn't affect the climate in the past and our effect now is negligible. Finally check things for yourself. Look at other factors such as variation of sun output, solar wind affecting cosmic particles which seed cloud cover, planetary movements coinciding with peaks and troughs in past earth temperature changes, Pacific and Atlantic ocean oscillations. There's so much more to climate change than CO2. Yet that's all the alarmists ever talk about. Do you think they possibly have an agenda? Could it be extra taxes, extra control of people, spreading the wealth of richer nations to poorer nations, keeping the funding going at all costs for various institutions? Instead of all this waste of resources we should be spending more money on what we really need - our future energy requirements - cracking nuclear fusion for instance?
Alex Meyer (25 дней назад)
What if these are the propaganda?
Sydney Carton (1 месяц назад)
This talk seems excessively flowery to me. Instead of talking ABOUT science, start talking science! State the facts: Humans are responsible for increasing global temperatures. However, according to Freeman Dyson, climatology is a science far from being well-understood. The output of computer models fueled the whole "An Inconvenient Truth" Climate Change Hoax..."cherry picking" science as Tyson puts it. With our current understanding, unpredictability and incomprehensibility remains a characteristic of climate data.
Zach H (1 месяц назад)
I had respect for him, until he supported CNN.
Peter Rasch (1 месяц назад)
They tried to fool us with the tobacco hoax too. Who do these libtards think they're dealing with? ~ stupid
Mark van Slooten (1 месяц назад)
Neil is not consistent. When climate change is concerned, he thinks that when 95% percent of the scientists (which is not the case actually) are in consensus, it becomes a fact. Usually he is more scientific than that. People who study the sun for instance (which is a lot harder science than 'climatology') claim that in 2030, the sun will be at its lowest level of activity in 500 years and heralds the dawn of a new ice age. I wonder is Neil is man enough to admit that there is reason for doubt or if he stays adamant. I hope and actually think he will come around cause I have a lot of respect for the man.
storm14k (1 месяц назад)
Tell you what... Discuss the science of firearms and the dumb asses will be sitting here listening like lambs.

Хотите оставить комментарий?

Присоединитесь к YouTube, или войдите, если вы уже зарегистрированы.