Why People Don’t Believe In Climate Science

[MUSIC] Our last video gave you a nice, neat list
of facts explaining why scientists are so sure that climate change is real and that
humans are the main cause. We’ve filled libraries with reports and
graphs and books about climate change, more facts than you can shake a hockey stick at.
Still, four out of ten Americans aren’t convinced. And consider this: Among the majority that
do accept the science of climate change, folks don’t seem to be doing much about it. Today we’re going to look at a few of the
reasons why facts don’t always work, how our brain fights with itself to keep us from
responding to threats, and the science of why some people don’t believe in climate
science. [MUSIC] Kurt Vonnegut once said “I was taught that
the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it’s a very
poor scheme for survival.” The problem is… we’re human. Psychologist John Tooby says “our modern
skulls house a Stone Age mind.” Now we’ve come a long way since our cave-dwelling days,
but what Tooby means is we’re dealing with the threats of today using tools from our
brain’s evolutionary past. The issues that really grab our attention
involve P.A.I.N. According to psychologist Daniel Gilbert, we respond most strongly to
threats that are personal, that represent abrupt changes in our environment, that are
immoral or indecent, and that are affecting us now. Climate change is a gradual, impersonal
thing that always seems to live in the future. But if climate change threatened these puppies,
wouldn’t you pay more attention? Our one brain is really two: One rational
and one emotional. The rider looks like they’re in control, but the elephant really has the
last say. Lots of the time, our emotional brain elephant isn’t even listening. Let’s say the rider loved that article about
how climate change is threatening banana crops, but the elephant isn’t motivated to act
until the bananas are gone. According to psychologist Daniel Kahneman,
when we’re faced with uncertain threats about things we might lose in the distant
future, our brains will invent all kinds of excuses not to act on them today. I mean, look at the way we talk about climate
change. It always seems to happen in the future tense. “Caretakers of the future” “what the
future holds” “sheltering future generations” “stand up for our future”. A poll by Yale University shows 65% of people
think climate change will harm future generations, and just 38% say it will harm them personally.
This is what Kahneman calls our “optimism bias”, assuming we face lower risks than
others do. Car accidents won’t happen to us, or the next big hurricane surely won’t
hit here, because bad things only happen to other people. I can point to extreme storms like Hurricane
Sandy or Typhoon Haiyan as obvious effects of climate change, but someone else might
point to them as proof the climate is random. We have a tendency to cherry-pick evidence
that supports our existing beliefs. It doesn’t help that many climate change
threats are becoming so familiar that they’re just… normal. “A new United Nations report raised the threat
of climate change to a whole new level” “Severe, pervasive, and irreversible.”
“Longer, hotter, drier droughts, and it will only get worse.”
“The world is ill-prepared for what is to come.”
“Without action there could be irreversible damage”
“The fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk.” Hurricanes and wildfires are always on the
news. September 2014 was the 355th month in a row of higher than average temperatures.
It’s like a broken record… People also doubt climate change because they’re
uncertain about uncertainty. When scientists talk about uncertainties, all the known knowns,
known unknowns, unknown unknowns, many people think they’re not confident in their findings,
when the opposite is true. Less than one in four Americans think that there’s a scientific
consensus about climate change, yet 97% of scientists are in agreement. What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. What’s weird is we don’t apply this uncertainty
about uncertainty to other issues. A one percent chance of a terrorist attack and we’re sounding
the alarm. “Instead of drifting along toward tragedy
we’ll set a course toward safety” Nearly certain global disruption from climate
change? “There is not agreement around the fact of
exactly what is causing this.” “The climate is always changing, between pauses,
and we are not capable with our limited knowledge of predicting which way it will go next.”
“Eight inches of snow on the east coast. I’ve got an explanation that’s not climate change,
it’s called winter.” Thanks to today’s hyperbole-infused media,
we’re almost numb or indifferent to anything that isn’t about to literally kill us. Why
aren’t more people worried? Patricia Linville and Gregory Fischer argue
that we have a finite “pool of worry” and climate change isn’t allowed in the
water. We view and make sense of our world through
frames, not just so we can focus better on what’s inside, but also to decide what we
can ignore. For some people, your frame is built based
on your political party, for others it’s carved out of your religious beliefs or economic
philosophy. Viewing the world through the same frame as your social “in-group”,
whatever that might be, is important to remaining part of that in-group. Basically, we’re all puppets controlled
by the strings of social conformity. It’s not a choice, it’s just who we are. From
the time we’re kids, we read social cues from people around us, like how to talk or
not burping in public. Our survival used to literally depend on being part of a social
group. So if you’re part of some social group that doesn’t believe in climate change,
you have two risks to weigh: Climate change and all of its uncertainties, or the very
personal risk of becoming an outsider. Sociologist Stanley Cohen writes that climate
change denial isn’t not knowing, or refusing to know. It’s about choosing not to notice
or talk about it, so they don’t rock the in-group boat. Climate change is almost the perfect problem.
We’ve gotta do something about it, but every one of its attributes goes against our psychology.
It’s like that black cloud from “Lost”, it has no identity, no home, no single cause,
and no single solution. And it’s about more than science, it involves economics, morals,
human rights, ideology, technology. It’s really hard. In another video we laid out the facts about
why man-made climate change is real. And here we talked about the many reasons why facts
don’t always work. But I haven’t answered the most important question: How do we get
people to act? Truth is, I don’t know. Action is the destination, but I’m not sure about
the path we should take to get there. I mean, is anyone? I want to know what you think. When it comes
to tackling climate change, to exploring solutions and adapting to the new future, what are you
worried or unsure about? What are you hopeful about? What do you want us to explore? We’ll
definitely be coming back to this in the near future, so let me know down in the comments,
and we can figure out where to go together. I think the psychology behind climate science
might be even more interesting than actual climate science. If you want to read more,
check out “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate
Change” by George Marshall. Link down in the description. Stay curious.

Comments 100

  • I think it’s just we mostly overstand that you and every other climate alarmist has no clue what “climate” is. You point at random WEATHER events and claim it’s climate. When in reality climate is the long trending behavior of weather. It always changed/changing over time. Science took a simple correlation/consensus and made a definitive conclusion and that’s so not how this works. Remember when we knew the world was flat or at the center of the universe?

  • When the mass suicides start then global warming may exist.

  • Clean energy = more power and independence from another's control (gov, power companies, etc). Market it as freedom and not (at all!) about that political hot topic and more would join in probably. Selfish and "now" reasons.
    My thoughts anyway

  • Because it's not about science anymore. It is a pseudo-religious doomsday cult fighting for political power.

    It is hard to find something more dangerous to society than that…

  • Just more lies and falsified data. Dude, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Climate science is NOT true science. It is an indeterminate science. A science based on faulty & fraudulent models. The people of the world have been taken for the biggest scam in history. Pathetic sheep.

  • Ha ha ha ha! This is too funny. Dad thing is that this is a PBS video.

  • This guy is Cherry picking himself. Picking hurricanes which happen all the time as proof that climate is getting bad and warming. He contradicts himself throughout this video. The 97% of scientists consensus has been debunked. This was based on published essays and not all about climate but also about climate discord in the media. And 97% of the papers that concluded, based on their abstracts which was all that was used to base the opinion of the papers, that man takes a part in climate change and guess what, only 30% of all the papers studied had this conclusion.

  • 0:20 You forgot to mention that these libraries of reports have grossly overestimated temperature rises the last 25 years.
    All models were substantially wrong. So there's your answer. The track record does not warrant confidence in these reports.

  • For what it is worth, I am a physicist with a PhD from an Ivy league university. I am not a climatologist (I am a theoretical particle physicist) and I have spent my career looking at experimental data. I have looked at many of the papers on climate modelization and the evidence is extremely shaky. For example, they always hide a lot of details on their models. They do not specify how many free parameters are used, how the values are chosen and what are the uncertainties on them. They do not detail the uncertainties on the warming they get. There are uncertainties due to the input parameters, there are uncertainties due to the discretization, there are errors due to the models neglecting some effects, etc. It is never made clear what the uncertainties are. When money started pouring in the field (and of course the more alarmist some were, the more they could ask for more money and the more they got), the entire field became very biased and unreliable. Then journals were created who were just approving alarmist results and rejecting anything that didn't suit their narrative.
    But I guess that the guy in that video would just say that I am too stupid to understand….

  • Your facts are lies.

  • real problem climate abstraction a variable of actual problem with extinction.

  • Those are aren’t facts . Not proof it’s man made

  • i think i should unsubscribe this channel . Here is an interesting fact. The world is becoming greener as NASA told.
    Believe it or not.
    A world map showing the trend in annual average leaf area, in percent per decade (2000-2017)

    The world is a greener place than it was 20 years ago, as shown on this map, where areas with the greatest increase in foliage are indicated in dark green. Data from a NASA instrument orbiting Earth aboard two satellites show that human activity in China and India dominate this greening of the planet.

    Credits: NASA Earth Observatory https://www.nasa.gov/…/image/global_tamo_2017_full.png...

  • Why? A number of reasons. The #1 reason is alarmists have made predictions in the past that have not turned out too be true. Some of my favorites that i have run across. And no i don't remember exactly where. By the year 2000 England will no longer exist. When the USA reaches 200 million 1/3 of the country will starve because of a shortage of food. How wrong they were. We now have 300 million people and an obesity epidemic. The complete opposite of what they said would happen. These ideas were promoted by scientist Paul Ehrlich. He was the Neil Dyson of his day. #2. Liberals ignore science when it suits them. Scientists agree that pesticides are safe, yet liberals want to go back to organic farming. Organic farming requires more land and water. Liberals fail to explain where the extra land and water will come from. #3. Liberals refuse to support nuclear energy even when it proven safer than fossil fuels. I could go on.

  • i’ll look into climate change when all the celebs that complain about it ride bikes to shows instead of using cars and private jets also didn’t obama just buy a 12 mil shore front house looks like he doesn’t truly believe in it either

  • This is laughable. The earth has been cycling through warm and cold periods since life began. We are simply approaching the end of a warming cycle.
    Why is 1814 the last time the river Thames froze over? What were we doing in the 1800s that impacted the global climate so much? Industrialization had barely started in the early 1800s in America.
    Go make more apocalypse predictions that wont come true

  • I am sensing a lot of displaced eco anxiety in the video and comment section.

  • Why People Don't Believe In Climate Science. Nice title. Don't believe in… 'science'? Sounds like these people are really DUMB. Or is that the point?

  • It’ is fake

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpVBH-HY5Ow This is what 500 qualified scientists had to say about climate change to the UN.

  • Why is Mars (planet) warming, if their are NO cars or factories, on Mars ?
    Why do scientist fabricate data, if the science is sound ?
    I can show you 50 times that climate scientist were wrong, in the past 40 years. The 97% number is WRONG. The real number is 70%, at best.

  • The problem with Climate Change is the political fight between the left and right. Both benefit from it, so now it became more of a political problem than an environmental one.
    If there is Climate Change, politicians most probably don’t care about it and just want to gain power. That’s why we see the left strongly supporting the climate change and the right opposing, saying that the left are manipulating the people.

    This doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist, nor it means that it exists. I think that there is probably something happening, but the media manipulates data so that it seems catastrophic.

  • Their idiots or they work for companies that will lose to Green energy (coal and oil)

  • Fu*king hell 97% of scientists are NOT in agreement. Are you really that daft to believe that 100% of scientists were surveyed? That's the only way we'd know what 97% thought.
    That 97% figure has been debunked several times (a quick Google search will show results), but that figure is actually 97% of 1/3 of peer reviewed literature, as per the assumptions of John Cook et al.

  • Maybe people would believe it if Democrats weren’t using it to try and implement socialism.

  • It is áll home-made poison. DO NÓT BELIEVE…KNÓW!!….Gmo,s in our food, Chemtrails stuffed with badness in the air we breath, Fluoride and more in our drinkingwater. Big, Sick puppets, your Governments,…Smartmeters will give you braincancer and more healthproblems, your tv is ónly lying and gives you deadly radiation but…They will never tell you, it,s áll about money. Please wake up and change your life by using your own brain!!!! Love to you áll

  • global warmning was suppose to kill as years ago?

  • There's no point in crippling the economy by making the US stop all are carbon emmisions; the tempature would only drop point 4 degrees by 2100.

    Not only that but in places like China are bound not to give it up, despite the fact their carbon emmisions are doubled ours.

  • Because it is fake. DUH

  • It's Okay To Be Smart? More like "It's Okay To Be An Idiot." OOOPS #climatescienceisfake

  • Trumptardism.

  • Since when was science and politics separate? In my book, people who "believe in science" are truly scary. Perhaps they loath skepticism? Never been able to figure out how a person could be brought to such a state without being born to it. If we could terraform the Earth, why wouldn't we make it warmer? If we could do it on purpose, the coastal peoples will have plenty of time to relocate for the sake of the rest of us. If we can't terraform the Earth, how are we going to make it cooler? That does not compute. Longer growing seasons instead of snow sounds like a great trade off. Earth life is so precarious while it hasn't even managed to spread outward. Without taking Earth life off planet to live, all life could be snuffed out with one cosmic event. Regardless of everything, eventually the planet will be devoid of life. A barren waste.

  • This video completely forgets to mention that they may be wrong. 4 in 10 huh? Well then! That means the 6 to 10 group wins! They should get to do anything they feel necessary, right? NOPE! Thankfully, this is still America and we still have some protections from these lunatics who want to force their beliefs down our throats.

  • 1. We are not the cause of global warming

    2. Global warming doesn't exist

    3. It's an opinion not a fact

  • "How do we get people to act?" Stop making it look like a scam.

  • Climate has been changing and fluctuating for billions of years. But Democrats say we must vote for them or the world will end in 12 years. What kind of morons fall for this climate change gimick. Btw US tax dollars are already funding this garbage gimmick.

  • We believe in climate science just fine. What we refuse is this climat CULT that wants to take our money, A/C, beef, toilet paper, etc. while they live it up with all the money. They don't quit flying in jets constantly and move in small houses to conserve energy. People see through this ? for the hoax it is.

  • Maybe because a few years ago, 'climate science' was telling us we were going into an ice age. And they wanted our tax dollars for that too. Hmmm, it's seems very suspicious that the apparent answer to all climate problems is huge, oppressive government and taxation.

  • This video should be labeled LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

  • Because uif there was a real problem the leaders would be doing something other than preaching at us and doing the exact opposite with very large house personal jets it’s hard to follow hypocrites

  • There is no climate science. The term climate is just a word for statistical weather data. Earth has thousands of different „climates“. You folks are hunting ghosts.

  • I wish this video would talk about the pleistocene ice age. Meh..

  • Fake news

  • I'll just leave this here:


  • Great video !

  • The climate changes all the time, wild fires are normal…. they happen in africa all the time, yes high carbon in the atmosphere is causing higher temperatures… but this is a stupid cause and 20,000 years ago we wouldent be able to live in the northern hemisphere… the fact that its getting hotter is good greenland will finnally be hospitable

  • Because it's not a catastrophic issue…climate is always changing and CO2 is plant food. How you don't know this as a science channel completely discounts any knowledge you have to share. H20 is a greater factor as a greenhouse gas. Do everyone a favor and cancel yourself.

  • The same social instinct that goes against acting on climate change will help us act on it. As the worst effects become more evident, the issue will become more dire and our survival instinct will kick in. The next generation is more likely to go against the older generation and cause a sort of social pressure to act. This will make the climate a divisive issue, but this is the best humanity can be expected to do. Climate change activists vs Climate change deniers.

  • Because it’s fraudulent bullshit.. ‘UN agenda 21’ research that..

  • Hoax or not. But it doesn't mean we should continue producing health hazard and destroy ecosystem.

  • "97% of scientists are in agreement."

    When did they ask 100% of scientists???

    Also, who qualified as a "scientist"?

    That claim alone should be enough for any sane, rational, adult to demand proof.

    Speaking of consensus and science:

    "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

    Michael Crichton

  • I believe the climate is changing however it's been changing ever since we started taking notice of it and keeping records

  • maybe
    just maybe
    its a hoax and ppl with a brain see that it is all a load of crap

  • Its funny. Right now i am being bombarded with angry little girls telling me i killed this planet. Whats the solution? Waste time and money trying to fix something we apparently already killed.

    Any sane civilization who had been to the moon would look at ways to get off this planet and inhabit another. Unfortunately i dont live in a sane civilization and the solution is to stay until it kills us.

    Right there is the problem. Its non compatible with our species past. Our next step as a species is space colonization. If we were really killing this planet we would accelerate space colonization as opposed sitting and waiting for certain death. Global warming is a tool of the power hungry.

  • because of global cooling and the plethora of other alarmism

  • Because it doesn't exist ?????

  • Climate change 4.5 billion years on earth…..

  • How do we get people to act..it is called GOVERNMENT, we pay them to make us safe…what is their excuse…they have the power, money and resources to mobilise their citizens, but if they are not putting in measures for us to follow, then how can individuals make an effective difference; AUSTRALIA is doing very little as we are hooked on coal…we make a HELL of a lot of money exporting it too! So although per capita we are huge emitters, as as a nation less than 2%, but as said we sell, and are selling it to India and China…we really are dinosaurs: reptillian brains.

  • " How the heck did climate science even become a political issue" Asking that question proves how little people know about the UN and history.

  • Explain winter early 2019.

  • The path is invasion. US and Europe UNITE!! Take over the polluting countries!! GOGOGO

  • 97% of scientists agree that global warming is going to negatively change the planet and thus make it more difficult for humans to survive in the FUTURE. Agreed. However, there is ___% of anyone who knows how to fix the ENTIRE problem. The hole in the ozone was easy; you could SEE it and it wasn't all that inconvenient to make a change to fix it.

    Inconvenience is the main hurdle to battling global warming. Bill Gates and friends created all new nuclear power plants. Are they in use? No. Because they don't fix the ENTIRE problem and people are more afraid of them than the entire planet being destroyed. Why fix this when you can't fix that? This country pollutes more than that one. Why should country 1 stop polluting if country 2 is not going to?

    Our children's children will figure it all out, why should we worry; we will be long gone by then? – Is the common mantra. In the meantime, I'm going to drive my car (because electric ones are too expensive) I'm going to warm my house with gas (because solar panels are too expensive), I'm going to eat what they sell in the stores and restaurants because veggie options taste like crap, and I'm going to watch fires, hurricanes and drought info on TV because why did those idiots move there in the first place?

    I'm not doomed, but my children's children are going to live in a world that I'm happy I won't be around to see.

  • OK this didn't age well

  • It thought that because they're not all that bright.

  • It has been politicised to death.
    Also, the way that quite a few people speak about Global Warming comes across as fearmongering. Thats doesn't help either.

  • A belief is a thought that is repeated over & over again so that's all a belief is.
    To state that a repeated thought is an unjustified belief is not Science it's simply an opinion.
    There is a scientific gap between Weather & climate change.
    Weather is day to day & climate is over a 30+ year cycle.
    Your implying that it's not the climate that needs to be changed, it's people's thoughts.
    Doing that removes free will & introduces slavery.
    I believe the probability of controlling climate change is as unlikely as controlling what people think.

  • The Obamas own beachfront property in Hawaii and in 2019 bought another beachfront property in Martha’s Vineyard.

    Sounds like they’re terrified of global warming and the massive rise in sea levels predicted ?

  • Few dispute that "climate change" is real.
    They do not agree that it ti man caused or that man can fix it.

  • There’s also a perception of sensationalism by political “sides” – and right now a political line is already drawn on so many issues it’s difficult to overcome it for the most important one of all

  • It's true what you said but that doesn't mean people can't be convinced.

  • Imo the best we can do is to intentionally live out our beliefs about climate change. It doesn't need to be perfect, just reducing the amount of one-use plastic you use, eating a little less meat, maybe considering buying or leasing a hybrid or electric car if you can afford one instead of a petrol-guzzling one. Just doing whatever you realistically can.

    We need millions of people doing this imperfectly, not thousands doing it perfectly.

    And if you think cutting down on plastic won't make a difference, think about how many people you know. Say you talk to 10 people about reducing your plastic use. Maybe it motivates a couple of them to try a little harder. And maybe they'll talk to their friends about it. It's a ripple effect – you have so much more influence than you'll ever understand.

  • It's going to take the loss of an entire coastal population before most Americans decide to act in any meaningful way… but if it happens gradually, they still won't take it seriously.

    All of florida could wind up underwater, but if it takes 20 years to get there, people won't act to change it or treat is as serious. They'll just relocate and make jokes. it would have to be sudden, drastic and deadly before people pay attention enough to change their status quo… and even then, they'll look to blame something else.

    A storm, or a pattern of storms, wouldn't do the trick even if the death toll was in the thousands. You'd basically need a tsunami caused by an ice shelf falling into the ocean,caught on film and with footage to playback on the news. Unfortunately, I feel that the undeniable and irreversible is the only way anything will change minds.

  • What I've been learning as a student teacher is this: fix-it attitudes and approaches don't work. We educators have tried to hound, harass and beat students into good behaviour and attitudes for centuries, it's never worked. Just looking at the society we live in is enough evidence of that. Nobody likes an expert from on-high lecturing you about all the things you're doing wrong, and you have to do this, this and this NOW YOUNG MAN/LADY! All environmentalists have done since the 90s is tell us what's wrong and demand we fix it NOW! The forward is to look at what is right and good within the world right now, and build upon those strengths to create a better future. I think that also involves, too, acknowledging the good in fossil fuels, and the good in climate skeptics, too. Fossil fuels genuinely did give us all better lives and built a better (but still imperfect) world. The skeptics were right to maintain a critical attitude towards demanding authority figures, even scientific authority. They were only trying to make sure we weren't all taken in by bad science (which has happened in the past). We've all been on the same side: a better future. But, now we need to work together. Thank you coal, thank you gas, thank you oil, you helped us so much, but now we need to move on. Renewable energy should never have been about fixing a problem; it's about opening the door to a better future. Sure, current forms of the technology are rough, but what if it were perfected? Forget climate change, imagine if we could harness the near-infinite power of the Sun? There would be nothing we couldn't achieve! We could finally spread out past this little planet and take our rightful place as the masters of the stars.

  • Why people don't believe in "Climate Science". Climate science??? There are two sides of climate science. I have compared and found the manmade global warming theory does not hold water. The side that warns for a coming cooling down of the earth is much more plausible. You should change your line to It's Okay to be Dumb.

  • I’m still confused that a majority of people believe that violence is not the answer. If governments in the world truly cared about about climate change, then being forced to keep the planet livable for everyone is a totally viable way of fixing the issue.

  • By the way it’s to hot in the pacific

  • Climate protesters are now a Doomsday cult. Climate Change is a political and religious science to control the masses. There was a Finnish scientific report peered reviewed by Japanese scientists. It debunks the CO2 theory completely.

  • I don't thing climate change is wrong, I just don't like the people who protest and stuff instead of doing something

  • Now they should, The world is ending…

  • Trees need co2 to make oxygen so why not plant and grow more trees and when I hear crazy liberals talking about eating baby’s to stop climate change then it just sounds like BS.

  • We are entering a new age with everybody having a supercomputer in their pocket that is leading to an explosion of information revealing to people just exactly how corrupt the relatively few ruling elite mafia families ( otherwise known as the establishment global cabal/corporate banksters are) and that since they may no longer be able to just rely on weapons/drug and human trafficking as they did before to secure their trillions and consolidate their power, they had to think of a new scam that would get all countries on board and force them to surrender their power and assets to a relatively small, international group of elites who know better than anyone else, who (Surprise !) also just happen to be working for and controlled by the same relatively few ruling elite mafia families – Remember they're only warning you about "climate change" for your own good and because they love you. They always have.

  • Subconscious mind vs conscious mind. Ones your life's tape recorder. Every sight, sound, smell, taste, and texture you've experienced since BIRTH, is all stored away in your subconscious mind.
    The conscious mind. Recite your ABCs….if you do this without thinking, that's subconscious. Repetition becomes habitual.
    Now, recite the alphabet backwards. Can't do it can you. Now you have to think about each letter. Conscious. Thinking. Creative. That's the difference between the subconscious and conscious minds.

  • I can read and understand charts, it's a fraud.

  • If you call them facts then I call you a liar.your models haven’t come close to actual measured temps. NOAA and nasa “scientists” are constantly fudging current and historical data. If it was real, why would you have to lie?

  • 3:54 That is a LIE! http://www.petitionproject.org/

  • Listen young feller, we have been hearing this crap for OVER FIFTY YEARS, and it is still wrong.

  • Why don't you mention the fact that the earth was going through a mini ice age 200 years ago or that nasa has concluded that global warming is caused by variations in the earth's orbit around the sun or the fact that 30,000 climatologists have stated that climate change is not man made?

  • I believe in climate change but I do not believe its going to kill us any time soon. No legit climate scientist believes that it is an epidemic. And the UN Climate Planel have concluded that at its worst we'll just be paying slightly less than what we would in 30 years on it. No immediate or major effect at all. It's why I'm sick of climate alarmists. Its not based in reality or science.

  • Im just hooked on that EJ rumble.

  • We need 0 population growth. Lets just die out, lots of things will be better if we do. As for climate change, its all about money and power.

  • What happened to global warming, climate change happens all year jack ass. Its called seasons, winter, spring, summer, and fall. Who paid you to make this fake news video is what I really want to know?

  • Why is it cold now

  • 3:49 Scientist consensus of 97,1% is based in a statistics fraud committed by John Cook of Queensland University, Melbourne, Australia.
    There are some examples of why I went from being a fervent believer in anthropogenic climate change to an informed skeptic.

  • Healthy climate: Exists
    Boomers: we don’t do that here

  • Guys we found the great filter

  • PV=nRT, the Ideal Gas Law defines Temperature of a gas being primarily the product of Pressure and DOES NOT discriminate between gases. These scientists have absolutely proven that greenhouse gases DO NOT EXIST! CO2 AGW is DEAD!

  • This is a perfect example of 'Gaslighting' the opposition. It's never used by those that are confident about their position. Are the over 31,000 American scientists, including over 9.000 PhD that signed the Oregon petition denying climate change, suffering from mental illness? Or is the aroma of bovine excrement strong in this one?

  • This was way more complicated than it needed to be. Its simple, non believers don't trust the science community enough to bet there well-being on it.
    Two main reasons,
    The science community has has lost credibility due to things like the food pyramid being found to be incorrect.
    And what you might call political/economic external influences. Doctors on tv ones told peaple smoking was good for you. Turns out that where wrong.
    It makes sense to most people to ignore a a group that cant evan get there story strate. AOC stated we have 12 years left till irreversible damage was done to the climate. Well I'm old enough to remember Gore say the same thing. Neither one of these peaple are scientists, you might say. True and neither am I. What am I supposed to do? Give up all the modern tech for some guy in a lab core I dont trust.
    I hope I was cojent enough. Thanks

Leave a Reply

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