Invalid Arguments: Climate Change

Good Morning John. I’ve got a problem. I will still be alive in 2060, probably. That’s when the population will probably peak at around 10 billion people and also it is probably when we are gonna start feeling the really significant effects of global climate change. That’s not a problem that is gonna be solved in the next 50 years. It’s gonna be a problem when I die. And when you die. And lots of other problems will remain unsolved, and that’s okay. Like, no one has ever died having solved all the problems. It was okay for them, it’ll be okay for us. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a path that we should be walking down to solve the problems eventually. But I feel like before we can start walking on that path, we have to sort of agree that there is a problem, which we apparently haven’t done yet. So here are the top 10 arguments people use to say global warming either isn’t a thing or isn’t caused by humans and my responses to them: “Climate change is natural it’s happened before”. Yes, the climate has changed in the past. Often due to an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which is actually a pretty clear indication that increase in carbon dioxide will increase temperatures. “But, Hank, CO2 concentration is only increased because temperature is increased, not the other way around”. It is true that many warming events began without carbon dioxide levels increasing first; however, once the warming began, carbon dioxide levels increased, greatly amplifying the warming. Of the warming events we have record for, 90% of the warming took place after the carbon dioxide levels increased. “It’s just that the sun’s been getting hotter”. No! “The data these scientists are using are wrong because they put the thermometers in cities where there is heat sources and asphalt to heat everything up.” The heating of the planet shows up when you look at weather stations in cities or in rural areas, it shows up when you look at satellite data or thermometers that are sunk deep in the ocean. It’s everywhere. Scientists are not stupid. “The earth is actually cooling.” No, I mean it’s not…it’s not, at all. 2000 to 2010 was the hottest decade ever. Ever on record. “But it’s not warming up as fast”. If you pick the years from 2009 ’till now the trend line is indeed not as steep. But the climate doesn’t change on the scale of years. That’s like looking at a picture made of five pixels and trying to figure out what it is. It’s just not going to be very clear. That’s why we look at decades and centuries of data. “They predicted an ice age in the 70’s”. A small research team did say that and the news media talked about it for about two weeks. But the vast majority of peer-reviewed science during the 70’s said that the climate was warming. Because of – you guessed it – carbon dioxide emissions. “You’re just cherry-picking the data that support your hypothesis”. Data supporting global warming comes from like every branch of science: whether it’s biology, with animals ranging farther north, or epidemiology, with disease ranges spreading, or agriculture, with yields increasing in temperate areas, increased water temperatures, decreased snowfall, earlier snowmelt, rising sea levels. “But Antarctica has more ice now than it used to”. No. But interestingly, it does have more sea ice than it used to. There is land ice, the ice that exists on the land of Antarctica (which is a continent), and then there is sea ice, which (for the most part) forms in the winter and melts in the summer. The land ice, the glaciers, is what you have to worry about, and that is melting at an alarming rate. Now, why there is more sea ice in Antarctica now than there has been previously is an interesting question. One that has been studied. And here is a quick description – you can pause the video to read it. “Fossil fuels… they’re great”. On this point, I agree with you. I think fossil fuels are miraculous. They are a precious resource. I’m not gonna rag on anyone who works hard providing inexpensive energy and the freedom and happiness that it provides. But there are costs to burning fossil fuels. So we have to use them less, by choice and through hard work. We have to develop alternatives, we have to be more efficient, and we have to change the way that we live our lives. But as long as we agree that there is a problem I have complete faith in humanity’s ability to solve it. Because solving problems is what we do best. John, I’ll see you on Tuesday.

Comments 100

  • I came here from threadbanger…. i don't understand why.

  • More relevant now than ever.

  • Who's John? 😐

  • My family is really conservative. I have to act like I agree. I don't agree.

  • HEY BROTHER! Wait…
    Wrong channel…ops! 😂

  • Well, but i heard some studies have been changed by UN. They changed some variables and results

  • That moment when auto-play brings up crash-course "the rise of conservatism" after a climate change video. LOL

  • We are all so dead. Lol

  • We are all so dead. Lol

  • This video wouldn't convince my dad — he thinks climate change is a liberal hoax created in order to form a larger rift between political oppositions

  • Such a joke… See anything from Tony Heller who presents scientific facts.

  • He did not give a very comprehensive response concerning the first question about climate change happening before. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, not caused by humans burning fossil fuels if you look at the years on the graph. However, putting CO2 into the atmosphere is probably making it worse. Therefore, humans are not causing climate change, just making it worse than it should be.

  • This guy is crazy! Everyone knows that global warming is caused by cow farts!

  • 2017 and this is still relevant

  • Various religious groups have denied and still deny Evolution. The theory is now over 150 years old and still billions of people reject it, even after genetics proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. If there is a similar delay in accepting Climate Change…we're doomed.

  • Betting everything on carbon is stupid. What if carbon is the result of warming and not the other way around. There were times in earth's history when carbon in the atmosphere were higher in concentration than today and the earth was doin fine. I am skeptical to blame it all on carbon when there are so many sources of warming.

  • The condescension

  • 2000-2010 hottest decade ever? Prove it

  • Decided to step out of my comfort zone and watch a climate change video. I like your perspective. I really appreciate the links and will start digging into this matter with a little more fervor. Still skeptical at this time. Thx

  • Nice job arranging your books by color temperature! 🙂

  • Stilll not a problem

  • Someone once told me that earth was getting closer to the sun

  • PSEUDOSCIENCE! confirmation biased billionaire Rockefeller trust funded. Big oil likes "glogal warming" because they get to charge more. Confirmation bias is an easy trap to fall in with the internet.

  • back in the 80s EVERBODY was convinced we are going into the next ice age , good grief kids worry about something you can do something about , take care of the elderly , shelter the homeless , feed the hungry , and for god sake inform the ignorant;-)

  • Kenneth Richard: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change
    by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. 10 Jan 2018

    A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

    Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

    According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

    Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.

    The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by climate alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of these papers, for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on climate and weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation patterns.

    The second position questions the allegedly “unprecedented” nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers suggested that these events fall within the range of natural variability, while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels.

    The third position casts doubt upon the efficacy and reliability of computer climate models for projecting future climate states, suggesting that such predictions are “little more than speculation” given the enormous uncertainty and margins of error in a non-linear climate system with nearly infinite variables. Twenty-eight of the articles in question examined climate model unreliability, including factual errors and the influence of biases, while an additional 12 found no net global warming during the 20th/21st century.

    The fourth position questioned the effectiveness of current policies aimed at curbing emissions and pushing renewable energy, finding them both ineffective and even harmful to the environment. This position also offered a more sanguine evaluation of the projected effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and a warmer climate, questioning doomsday scenarios and proposing net benefits to the biosphere such as a greener planet and enhanced crop yields.

    In this category, 12 of the papers documented the failures of policies targeting renewable energy and climate, 8 contended that wind power is harming the environment and biosphere, 13 argued that elevated CO2 levels make for a greener planet with higher crop yields, and 5 proposed that warming is beneficial to both humans and wildlife.

    All of these factors, Richard declares, substantially undermine the claims of climate alarmists that scientific opinion on climate change is “settled enough” and that “the time for debate has ended.”

    The articles, in fact, are not written by uninformed “climate deniers,” but by serious scientists who believe that the true nature of scientific inquiry is not to bow to some proposed “dogma”—especially where significant ideological, political and economic interests are at play—but to see where the facts lead on their own.

    Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter

  • I believe in climate change however how can you say the last ten years have been hot! And then critisize nearly 10 seconds later the idea of using a small period of several years as evidence for trends in climate?

  • I want to do something about climate change but I am so disheartened that people in power don't even believe it exists.

  • This is music to my ears.

  • There is no such thing as a hot year

  • 3:03 *previous

  • Nice arguments!

  • Even if the recent warming period is wholly attributable to an increase in Co2 i'm not convinced that a few degrees warmer and more Co2 would be a bad thing. What I am convinced off is that agricultural productive would go up even if you just count the increased Co2 and not the warming. Sea level rise, yes that would be a thing, but other than that…
    I think it was somewhere in the range of 10-15% increase in biomass since the 80's with 70% of that increase being attributable to Co2. That's huge, yet it seems to be almost never mentioned.
    The whole crops are gonna fail, hurricanes are going to destroy shores, droughts will be more frequent etc etc. I hear many times is laughable to me though. That's the CAGW or catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which really isn't based on any evidence.
    And don't give me that the science is settled thing, the only thing scientists generally agree on is that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, there's no consensus on how much influence it has or if there's a net negative feedback or positive feedback.

  • Climate change is a problem,
    Just a small, small, problem.

  • Climate change deniers are desperate and will lose. By 2030 majority of the world will embrace renewable energy like 80 to 90 percent. Buh bye USA. Your oil hegemony will mean nothing in the long run.

  • Let's do the math:

    How long has our planet been around? Answer: 4.6 Billion years approx. That means there has been 4.6 billion years of natural climate change.
    How long have we humans been around? Answer: opinions vary but anywhere between 100,000 – 250,000 years.
    How long have humans been engaged in heavy industry Answer: 150-200 years.

    Now, apply the math. 4.6 BILLION years of NATURAL climate change vs 150 years of human emission of carbon dioxide.

    What's more likely to be truly driving the climate? Answer: I would argue that overwhelmingly it is natural climate variability. Humans are a speck of the landscape so to speak.

  • Sure let's go with that, however, when taken as a function of carbon emissions (statistics come from the EPA), global temperature change (statistics come from NASA) stays constant, despite changes in carbon emissions:

  • What I think needs to be looked into further is what are the real downsides to global warming because the cost of every country going green is so high that even losing cities is likely worth it.

  • Al gore came up with this crap.

    And everyone ate it up.

  • funnily enough this sun actually is getting hotter. at a rate of about 1% per 100 million years. So a billion years from now, the sun will be about 10% hotter causing the oceans and lakes and other sources of water on earth to all evaporate away. Long story short, if you're thinking really long term this whole global warming thing isn't so bad.


  • Al Gore thank you Hank.

  • Global Warming is a religion; in fact, it is the preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. As such, there is no science supporting it. Let's take you, for example. You believe in Global Warming, ergo you must be scientifically illiterate. I'm sure you will acknowledge that you do not know any particular science supporting Global Warming. There is no "path" down which we should be proceeding.

  • Refuting 10 arguments in just over 3 minutes. Not bad.

  • But your arguements make no sense
    " Yes often temperture increased first causing more carbon dioxide which caused increased temperature
    therefore its all due to carbon dioxide"
    am i crazy or is that a rubbish arguement…..erm i think it is

  • CO2 lags temperature….

  • I'm a skeptic, but I liked this. I liked that you didn't just relentlessly trash on fossil girls, but rather encouraged innovation.

  • I have seen science develope for 50 years. Ask yourself why global warming is the first idea that so called scientists are arguing about. It is politicians that want it to be our fault and science is not seeing it. The "Vast majority of scientists DO NOT agree with warming being our fault. Go and look at past data. Not the data that the government is putting out. Ask your self why the gov. is blocking data from some scientists.

  • The Dynamic Role Of Greenhouse Gases & how quantum mechanics explains global warming (5 minutes):
    As the sun emits the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy, the Earth absorbs both longer waved infrared light (IR) and shorter waved visible light. The total of this absorbed energy causes thermal heating that is gradually re-emitted in the form of infrared energy. Much of this is reabsorbed by the larger molecules in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and water vapor, but not the smaller molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen. This creates a positive feedback loop between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface and causes temperatures to rise. Thus, more heat is retained than escapes back into space.
    Note: Any increase of larger molecules in the atmosphere raises its thermal level and is a function of both classic physics and quantum mechanics.
    Read more:

  • 2000 – 2010 was the hottest decade ever.

    Since 1800…

  • I have one question, if Co2 blocks the heat of the sun, and it can't get away, and by this reaction warms our planet, why doesn't it block the sun to get to the planet?

  • Maybe you should seek medical help for your Climate Derangement Syndrome and check out Dr. Judith Curry. Your political view is not science. Climate change is not even a theory yet, gravity is a theory. This climate stuff is a pop culture political football and your credibility is gone.

  • Climate change is a fraud and an excuse to raise taxes.

  • Cook et al shows no consensus, deal with it

  • .03% of the atmosphere is CO2. Im sorry, thats not enough to do a damn thing.

  • Adventure communist was an add on this idk just thought you'd like 2 know

  • The hottest summer ever was 1936…….

  • What you need to see is the graph at this dingdong shows at about 58 seconds. He states that the blue line CO2 is driving the redline and that there is a correlation. But there is a remarkable change in the blue line and the redline is not responding. Every other point on the graph is in lockstep and one could Explain the increase in CO to buy out gassing of the oceans as the temperature rises in response. If a principal you change one variable and see how the other reacts. Here we have it CO2 has gone up from 260 to 400 and yet the temperature is stable in relative terms. How much more clear does it have to be. CO2 is not driving the temperature. Quit wasting the worlds resources trying to eliminate a completely harmless gas. Millions of people are dying from bad air in this world every day and not a single one from climate change let’s put the money to a cause that actually makes a difference in peoples lives. This guy also says that the glaziers in Antarctica are melting. How is that possible when the average temperature is -50°. Yeah it never gets above freezing so how do they melt. They don’t melt they travel along like ice does out into the ocean and they break off and they float away. They don’t start melting until I get a good distance from the south pole. And all of the shore ice that they’re so worried about disappearing is floating and will never cause the ocean to rise because it’s already in the ocean.

  • This video still doesn’t convince me that because co2 emissions = earth getting hotter. They are just comparing two graphs that looks alike

  • Humans do not power climate on the global level. They can affect a micro-meteorological level & that's it.

  • just make ice lol what a joker

  • “It’s just that the sun has been getting warmer….NO!”
    …shows a graph of sun getting warmer

  • Doesn't matter, it will be fixed when necessary. Possibly by going full nuclear power like France. Until then, why don't you nerds get China or India to agree first before you start going crazy about America 🙄. Typical progressive 🐑.

  • 0:50 this chart doesn’t make sense, why is the temperature data from 1961 – 1990 overlaid? It’s shows the temperature declining over the last 20 years, but on top of data ranging from 400,000 years ago! Also, you didn’t mention the Little Ice Age (1300-1850) which was pre-industrial revolution and which happened when the human population was lower due to plagues in Medieval times. Please don’t share charts to prove an argument if you don’t explain how it was made. It’s misleading to lay audiences. More on the little ice age:

  • The argument that because most scientist or people believe in something that means it has to be true is somehow proof that I don't really want to trust. Didn't Socrates hate the idea of democracy because he didn't like the idea that if the majority of people believe in something that makes it automatically true? Is it possible that all the scientists somehow could be wrong and climate change is not man made after all? According to the same logic most people in the world I think are religious. Does that mean according to the same logic that we all now have to believe that a God excists because most of the people and most scientists also and religious experts believe in it? And that means we all should believe in some creationist theory and not in the theory of evolution for example?

  • If you think climate change isn’t real the number of likes i get is you’re iq

  • The increased heat causes increased CO2, not the other way around.

  • Climate change and evolution both are real and thankfull we will evolve to handle climate change as we have for generations.

  • This is one of the better videos on the subject of global warming to share because it covers the essentials, is entertaining and accurate.

  • CHANGING CLIMATE'S going to do in us Primates.
    Also the birds, though they can't read these words.
    The dodo was doodoo we flushed down the loo, too.
    And the trees and the seas and the bugs and the pugs.
    And not just the plants and the animal zoo …..
    the tiniest planktons that make the O2.
    It's so terribly sad when ONE species ….. just ….. ceases.
    You'd think we'd
    had a special plot,
    "Exterminate the bloody lot!"
    Deniers and liars and industry hires, weave and deceive us, their gullible buyers.
    So now we have the great distinction of bringing on our own extinction.
    And know what's really, really funny?
    We're FOSSIL FOOLS in love with money."
    The End??????

  • Colder winters, hotter summers… fun

  • Let me give you the ultimate point against climate change nobody can deconstruct as incorrect: You are wrong =). This can be made even clearer by raising ones voice or stomping on the ground with one foot, maybe cross your arms in front of you and pick up the look of a 4 year old, not getting what it wants.

  • you should try some real science instead because you clearly dont know much about co2…….

  • There are solar cycles, you know. Warming periods and cooling periods are lengthy. Warming in recent decades is just the earth warming after a cool period. Look for the earth to cool again in a few decades. Relax and enjoy life. There is no climate crisis. Moreover, more CO2 in the atmosphere will be a good thing. More CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth which translates to more food for people and animals.

  • All the more reason to further embrace and develop nuclear energy technology. oh wait, people (like you) are still fear mongering about it, oh well.

  • Nonsense….relax folks, it ain't happening.

  • Time scale is important, cherry pickers can show INCREASING and DECREASING temperature trends depending on the scale. Humans are obviously contributing but are INSIGNIFICANT compared to Solar and Galactic influences.

  • Melting glaciers dont lie, but grant funded climate scientists do.

  • tony heller    watch and learn something

  • Two issues: the rate of warming and climate sensitivity.

    The rate of warming since 1970 has been about 0.16 degrees per decade. Since about 1880 the average rate has been less than .01 degrees per year, while the average CO2 increase has been less than one part per million per year.

    Whereas predictions of the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 ranged from 2 to 12 degrees, that number has been going down over time with a generally accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees with the IPCC giving an average of 3 degrees. Recently people have been talking about 2 degrees. Actual data indicates that it is in the 1.5 to 2.3 degree range.

  • I like how you cherry-picked that Graph to suit your agenda, instead of using the ARGO Global Mean Oceanic Temperature chart, which shows a sharp drop in Global Mean Oceanic temperature that started in 2016 and has continued ever since. Also, if the correlation between Carbon emissions and global Oceanic temperatures existed, then why was it only the Southern Hemisphere that exhibited increases in Oceanic temperature between 2005-2016, and not the Northen Hemisphere? Question for you- what gas do plants consume in order to grow, propagate and thrive? I'll give you a hint, it's not oxygen. Within a controlled environment, the more CO2 rich the atmosphere you have, the faster a plant will grow and propagate. So, just stop the loony leftist fear-mongering nonsense already.

  • Soo how about an update?

  • CO2 doesn't kill us but the lack of it does

  • I really recommend you watching Patrick Moore, because everything you said CO2 is inaccurately incorrect t2

  • Man-made climate change is fake news. Here is why:

  • Global temps are cooling. Fact. Don't be a steeple and grow a pair.

  • Hank, I respect your work greatly but you need to do more research. I suggest Tony Heller’s work.

  • it's not a conspiracy. it's openly a fraud to make the rich richer

  • A mini iceage will sort it out……………….. and its free .

  • Five years later and things ain't lookin so good

  • I'm glade I don't follow this eegit!

  • People should watch this video, presented by Patrick Moore – the founder of Greenpeace.

  • 40% of temps "estimated"; 89% of US stations INCORRECTLY sited; the change from whitewash to modern paints ADDING 0.7F, half the temp rise claimed; British warships just 2 miles apart recording 3C different in 19th century. ONE station for whole South hemisphere for 3 years then, too. NOAA changing 600 historical temps per month.
    The Medieval Warm Period a time of PROSPERITY. WHY should NOW be any different? Hm? ANSWER you bovine oaf! Name 2 bad things PRESENTLY from warming. NOT in the future.

  • "We can control the weather."
    – Arrogant humanoid

  • check out tony heller  videos so easy even this group below can understand

  • 👍

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *