Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox 

Like Minecraft

Even us.

didnt even read the comments till i was done with the video! who does that?

I was having a test due in 5 minutes

@@mixmastermike2128 Seeing the comments can make you reach a conclusion before watching the video, you're just being affected by the demon of reason ;)

love ur pfp.

@@dafanoffandoms8414 Tysm

I MISSED THE DEMON OF REASON TOOO!!!

4:20 Minecraft villager sounds

i want more

That's how cognitive bias works. We can never stop it, we can only work to mitigate its effect upon our thinking.

It takes constant practice and seeing more examples to be able to spot fallacies on the spot

Like the CO2 caused man-made catastrophic global warming fallacy ?

The simplest solution is to learn to accept when we fall for them. Most people try to defend their egos and make the problem even worse.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

Yeah, I hate people say that the climate changed in the past so there's nothing to worry about. There have been 5 mass extinctions in the past, with one of the driving factors of those extinction events being climate change. Even if climate change wasn't human driven, we would still need to be worried and be preparing for the worst.

​@@EmotionsNeverLie Yeah, but the current idea that the burning of fossil fuels is causing Global Warming is a kind of false analogy too, rather like the WW1 and all wars. Just because we are producing CO2 and the past instances of global warming produced CO2 doesn't mean that the extent to which we are doing it is enough to cause the effect. Deforestation, or even coincidence could account for the warming. Now there is other global warming research, but going just on the evidence of the video, the reverse assumption is almost the same apples and oranges fallacy.

@@EmotionsNeverLie That is not what they are saying in this video. They’re not deny the severity of it or the knowledge that it is happening what they are doing. It’s saying that It makes no sense to blame one thing in particular for complex climate change. We should instead focus on ways to make renewable energy.

A very important part, but not relevant in this video. This video was about false analogies-and as an example, they used the false comparisons people made, and still make, about climate change. They dove into what a false analogy is, to what its consequences can be, which, in the context of climate change, could be the impediment of scientific research that is needed to understand climate change.

It's still slow enough for life to adapt. Imagine Africa becoming a blooming fertile land ...

And he lied to you because CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth. Go do some research.

@@ricktd6891 You do some research. While CO2 is no the sole cause, it IS one of the causes.Ted-ed already has a wonderful video about how greenhouse gasses trap heat. However, the growth of the amount in CO2 does not correlate with the temperature growth, since Earth is a very complex system (for example, ocean absorption). Stop telling misleading statement and tell them to do "research".

@@ricktd6891 oh so what does? You have some theories of your own? Something that can contradict majority of research in past decades

@@ricktd6891 You do realise that the inherently dismissive and derogatory nature of "go do some research" doesn't add credibility to a statement, yes? Furthermore, if you're making a claim, support it with evidence, as the burden of proof lies with you, which as it happens, was covered the focus of another of these "Demon of Reason" videos

@@ricktd6891 I neither have the patience or compassion towards human being lacking anything in their skills to explain anything to you but look at the other replies please.

300iq*

@Merodi Extensions he looks more like a dragon tho

@@TNIBall demon of reason though

it's a fiend

The demon of reason has 666 IQ

The CO2 global warming hypothesis is flawed, as in totally wrong.

@@ricktd6891 I’m curious, as you see it, what is the flaw in the CO2 argument?

@@argyldeathbrand6192 He saw that CO2 and temperature don't correlate predictably in a book. And says all Global warming is lies while ignoring outside factors outside of CO2 concentration that can affect the temperature of the planet.

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 And you don't understand the hypothesis at all. If you did then you would know CO2 is supposed to be "the main driver of climate", "the thermostat of the Earth", "the controlling factor", but if other factors overpower CO2 then it's not the "main driver of climate", is it ? For the hypothesis to be correct changes in temperature MUST follow changes in atmospheric CO2, not follow sometimes, go in opposite directions other times. Go learn some basic science and get back to be in 6 or 8 years.

@@ricktd6891 But this video wasn't discussing CO2 they were discussing change the climate so that hypothesis you keep bringing up in several comment threads has no bearing

"It must be just as good as the others"

Wake up, it's all lies.

@@ricktd6891 Wake up, it's someone who needs to go to school to get educated.

@@ricktd6891 Cough, how is it a lie?

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good to see you finally stopped pasting propaganda. When you have proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2, let me know.

The demon of reason is laughing at you, there is no treason, you do as you're programmed to.

He lied to you.

Ah, a man of Culture I see

@@robertsnider9880 Well due to dopamine Subjectivity and Pleasure to watch a Entertainment Animation is A programmed Configuration So technically you're Right but It's better than watching Let's plays anyway

@@ricktd6891 Nah, you're the one who's spreading lies mate.

and the public

@@endermeap6488 mostly the public. the people in power are simply complicit. that's the sad reality this character doesn't touch on. the powerful make-up these stories knowing full well it's all lies and the actual evidence does not support their claims. and ofc, a few "reputable" influencers/experts spread it for one reason or another. perhaps because they were bribed/blackmailed/etc. or perhaps "expert" in their case just means a worthless paper says so and they are in reality, quite clueless. a portion of the public eats it up and another portion has the intelligence and common sense to refute it. specifically in regards to global warming, recently learned something quite troubling, indeed... some will say "but, back then, these companies couldn't have known what their products do!" [live with one, in fact...] , the oil industry knew, well before everyone else. now the game they try to play is "we support/develop clean energy." [also ...mostly false, it's not a majority and i imagine their true objective in R&D is lock the tech behind patents so no one can use it] or even such bold claims as "we create jobs". that said, i wonder how many OLD industries/companies knew/suspected their products were not necesarrily safe?

He's Lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying to you.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

I made a joke about the demon of reason coming back, dang

@@vexialhex3124 The guy is spamming comments, so I made him taste his own medicine.

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good job! Dont let people spread pseudoscience on the internet

yes

wanted to comment that 2 at school teaches thing's and this demon teaches things so this is school

yes the demon of reason is the best!

100% agree!

Of course I love this guy alot

All hail the Demon of Reason!

I did this theheraldofthedark.tumblr.com/post/647757090380742656/you-dont-get-context because of you, enjoy

@@TheVampireviolet SAVED. IT HAS BEEN SAVED TO MY PHOTOS.

You love to be lied to ?

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

Demon of reason, watching on his tv: And I took that personally.

Its actually a single degree in hundreds of years they're saying now. Which is also why nobody believes the global warming conspiracy. Because nobody in science can agree on anything regarding the subject

50 years of global warming claims that turned out to be false. Like Florida being underwater by 2010.

@@colelawton4901 BOOTLICKER!!!

@@juarka2 BOOTLICKER!!!

More like lies and fear mongering.

@@ricktd6891 what about this is lies? I'm sure some examples of Rising Heat over Time are Slightly Inaccurate but the Point is Real.

I'm just imagining an eggplant on white background with Morshu beatbox playing

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@ricktd6891 Projection, much? ;)

What about all the lies and fear mongering ? Are you ok with that ?

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@ricktd6891 Your perseverance is applaudable, if only you didn’t reply with ridiculous comments.

@@terrylap6132 What facts would you like ?

@@ricktd6891 Studies and research papers with proper citations from credible sources or authors. It would be a bonus if the research paper itself is from a well known climatologist or scientist specifying in any areas regarding climate change.

But he’s a demon

He's a demon, not a dragon

@@NxVernxual lol yeah

SOCIETY

@@duo317 wE LiVe iN a SoCieTy

Its a demon Not a dude

@@oliviam.5754 its a demon dude

@@crazycoder2434 still just a demon

Sorry, that was fear mongering and lies.

@@ricktd6891 ?

10

Marrying the angel of ignorance...

You'd think their titles would be swapped...

Too bad he lied to you.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Damn that’s long.

@@ricktd6891 too bad nobody cares about your pseudoscience.

@@ricktd6891 bro are you alright you've replied to so many comments like this, no seriously are you good my g

Orange peel is edible

@@Owen_loves_Butterspaper is edible too but you don’t see me eating A4 sheets for breakfast

@@emeraldnickel Because paper doesn't have nutritional value and is indigestible

He lied to you.

@@ricktd6891 The Demon of Reason wasn’t lying. Did you see him yawn at the end of the video and if so, do you feel sorry for the poor demon who constantly has to deal with being a surprisingly popular character and should we let him get some much needed rest and relaxation in the form of much needed sleep?

@@parkerjarrell1137 I'll explain further. The whole video is propaganda used to push the man-made catastrophic global warming scam. It's not even an original idea either. Search : The Washington Post - November 2, 1922 "Report on Global Warming." Same exact scare story a century ago.

@@ricktd6891 What do you mean it is a scam. We are feeling the effcts of it _now_ ! If your not feeling them, your either happen to live in a place where the effects are less or are very rich and can avoid that problems with money.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

CO2 caused catastrophic global warming is a scam used to push politics on us, nothing more.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 in a nutshell: haha CO2 go brrrrrrrrrrrr not the humans

@@ricktd6891 oh please, you can’t even talk about the demon himself.

@@smt4090 Uuhhmm, humans release CO2.

Nice reference

lol

I like Hollow Knight

He lied to you.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Great research!

Pepsi and coke look the same so they taste the same. Then why do I like one better?

@@betka5791 the product name duh

And me, 2 minutes

early gang activity

Bohemian (something) by Queen ‘Born in a landslide’

Are you making an Arrested Development reference?

@@tell-talehearts4462 Maeby

This is one of my greatest life achievements

Actually we have reason to suspect Rhinos were what pliny the elder saw when he spoke of unicorns.

Just like people still somehow believe the Earth is flat.

​@@RGC_animationat least believing that the earth is flat is pretty harmless

Other than riddles.

@@RGC_animation yeah, the riddles are obviously also great.

By any chance are you also related to a highschool teacher that teaches in grade 10 history as well as the law courses?

It's all lies.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

@@ricktd6891 nobody cares. cry a river.

​@@spookyscarylamppost3431 I agree but like, I ain't reading all of that

Ah, so oranges and olives are the same? Good to know.

This was funny 😂😂😂😂

Good decision but chances are they are not going to watch or "believe" anyway.

Why would you send a video full of lies and fear mongering ?

@@hakimdiwan5101 I tend not to believe lies.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

3:50 -- 3:59 This is a fallacy too! He is assuminng that, just because similar events share different causes, therefore this event that's happening now must have a totally different cause too. And he just straight out states it's human action without even given any argument to support this.

We need him to lie to us ?

@@ricktd6891 dude the demon of reason is going to steal your cloths man

Congratulations. We have cookies.

How so? I gotta say, I like the purple demon but the explanation in this video is drastically over simplified. It's true that we shouldn't draw false comparisons, but this video doesn't take into account how deeply politicized the subject has become, making it hard to distinguish science from rhetoric. Personally I feel like we should be directing our focus more towards how human pollution and emissions are affecting the ocean. Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas that sinks in the atmosphere and the ocean absorbs it. this is resulting in the carbon levels in the ocean to rise dramatically. This change is one of the many reasons we have been seeing massive populations of fish dying. This is in part due to the acidification of our oceans creating an environment certain species of fish can't live in. Not to mention the amount of plastics in the oceon have grown so much that now we're seeing microplastics in everything we eat. One last point that is overlooked in this video. The greatest factor in the warning of the planet is the sun itself. This is not to say that greenhouse gasses don't exists or have an effect on global temperature. However we should also be looking at how much heat is being given off by the sun year over year because it is not always exactly the same. I believe that is a logical fallacy of its own for the demon ;)

@@Delsto5 Yes we have calculated how much sunlight the earth over years its called the Milankovitch cycles which predicts ice ages through by looking at long term trends of planetary movements of earth ( eccentricity, obliquity and precession),fossils and atmospheric composition(found through ice cores from poles). We are supposed to be in an ice age right now but we are not due to the agricultural revolution 9000bc humans cleared forests and released lots of co2 but this was gradual the climate variation we are seeing now is more rapid.

@@Delsto5 to answer your original question, my personal opinion on the subject was not very strong one way or the other, but I subscribed to the idea that the temperature of the earth fluctuated in the past and so it's just doing so again. I also have seen news headlines from a few decades ago about how the earth was entering another ice age, and since we're seeing the opposite headlines now, that it's mostly just panic. Again, that was all what I thought before watching the video. The video just outlined that while the temperature is fluctuating, the biggest commonality among all the warm periods is the atmosphere, and since we're altering the atmosphere (by how much is still up for debate btw), we should be wary of the possible long term effects. As for your point about the sun, my understanding is that the energy given off by the sun that actually makes it to earth is in the form of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, etc), and when it comes in contact with the atmosphere and the planet's surface, some of the radiation is converted to heat, and some bounces off. Some gases allow this electromagnetic energy to pass through them but are good heat insulators. So while the sun does vary in how much radiation it gives off at any time, the variation is not uniform (it mostly happens around the uv and x-ray parts of the spectrum, but I might have one of those wrong), and the variations are only around 3.3% throughout the year, and that variations is due to the earth's distance from the sun not being uniform. I'm not sure what about the video prompted you to mention the oceans, but I don't think we have much to worry about there. I'm with you on the microplastics, but that seems much more widespread than the oceans. As for the CO2 being absorbed into the ocean, my understanding is that the phytoplankton in the water convert that CO2 into oxygen (which is good) and use the carbon to keep living, and other sea creatures eat them so they can keep living. So (again, as I understand it) it seems like CO2 is a good thing for the oceans.

No, that's actually a different fallacy. Here's the episode about correlation is not causation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8HLtFv_KqoE.html&ab_channel=TED-Ed

👍👍👍

same

@@oliverelfenbaum7119 I won't

Then you get propagandized.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

He doesn’t need anyone’s protection he’s a chad

@@zayk7095 Fax

It's still natural but you can't control everything and everyone on Earth with "CO2 regulations" unless you lie and tell them it's not natural.

@@ricktd6891 Source in order: Skeptical Science CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth. Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165: "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2. Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally." What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle. Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over. In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions." 2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'" "Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated." "Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."

He would steal your clothes

@@blakechow8294 A small price to pay for knowledge.

He lied to you.

@@Alleis you don't get knowledge from him, you get lies, propaganda and fear mongering.

@@blakechow8294 And lie to you too.

I like how the original expert actually looks like he is listening and considering the demon's argument. Wish more people were like him.

Or, say, 2”

Oops, 20

True

Even if climate change takes millions of years to take horrible effects, it will take millions of years again to fix those horrible effects. Like how heating something that requires more time to increase the temperature, will in turn require more time for it to cool off. Saying global warming isn't a problem because its temperature change is small is like being in a forest and saying "It's a small fire, it won't burn anything," as you watch the fire slowly grows and start consuming the forest.

@Ted Ed Thanks for impersonating, I shall report your channel.

That's what all human sounds like.