Why Can't We Agree on Facts? 

The snakes probably bit the dinosaurs, who then fell on the snakes. Sounds like rock solid reasoning to me.

absolutely, i suggest we turn these findings into a book and send it to schools to enlighten the next generation

I don't see any problem with this reasoning

pay1370 he's been right before so he's probably right.

we could make a religion out of that

They're trying to save face, perfectly relatable, nobody wants to look dumb, they do realise they were wrong but want to look better. It's 25 times better than continuing to insist they're right and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

The issue with that is then they fall into one of the aforementioned cognitive biases and reject the new information and thus don't learn anything from the experience and continue to make the same mistakes. They tend to ignore the information in either situation.

That's why convincing people by giving them facts don't work. Asking why they are convinced about something and try to follow their logic through has a better chance of long term change. Magnabosco's Streets Epistemology videos try to do this with religion, but I believe the method work in other areas too. It's difficult though...

@Super_pooper_loser Well put :-)

​@Super_pooper_loser I totally agree with you, but it's sad that "being wrong" is such a negative. So what? We're wrong all the time, the point isn't to be right all the time, that's an unrealistic goal. The point is to be able to accept that you were wrong and work to be less wrong in the future. You don't expect the first time someone picks up a knife that they can prepare safe pufferfish, or the first time they pick up a disc that they can throw it hundreds of yards with accuracy. Accept that you were wrong and move on... it's less aggravating for everyone, especially someone that thinks they're right.

only in vermont

are dead frog marriages legal?

Only in Vermont.

The rumor come out, does Frog Bruno Mars is gay?

Only in vermont?

you mean irrational people do it for that reason. If you handed me a button that corrected my knowledge, (briefly ignoring questions of free will and consciousness) I would be ecstatic and push it immediately.

i just wanna press both the buttons cause i like pressing buttons...

I don't understand why someone would be afraid of pressing a button that would correct all of their knowledge. maybe they would be afraid that its not true knowledge, but what the button want you to think is true ?

Danilo Oliveira i think the main problem isnt that you would correct your own knowlege but also you correct everyone elses it just doesnt feel right to me do i wish everyone knew the truth about every subject they came across of course but forcing the entire world to think something without there permission is just a bit much i cant describe the feeling but it makes me uneasy however if i could push a button to get all knowlege on a subject and ways to argue it well and then given a platform to try and convince the world i would do that. it seems more fair to the general public to give them a choice.

if its true and not what I think then I don't see the problem. I would be very uneasy to force people my understanding of the world, it feels too fascist to make me comfortable, but if its the absolute truth then I don't see what is wrong. maybe some people wouldn't be able to handle the truth, or it would be too painful for them to realize their lifelong beliefs are flawed ? even if that is the problem, I think it would be a greater good in the end

was that i r o n i c a l or not?

It’s was obviously ironical

@@luukvanloo7195 you sure?

Sam lang you people stupid

Sam lang oh, got damn it, I just got wooooshed didn’t I?

Sort of true, but instead of APA style referencing, you can also just use hyperlinks, a small blue number that links to the actual article. That makes it still readable. And the whole bibliography is of course still in apa style.

This is why he said all humans without exception are stupid (1:54 - 2:15). The example you use to ridicule "how citing everything is bad" is ironically the best example of how a perfectly factually correct society would communicate because what is common knowledge to us is new to someone else. But again we're stupid, a perfectly factually correct society is just like many dreams of utopias, no where to be found. At least not by humans. Our AI robot overlords could easily use such a system.

Novumic well, AI already uses such a way of constructing ideas in mathematical world. The algorithm of Wolfram Alpha uses 52 steps to prove simple geometric theorem in a way completely foreign to a human understanding, but perfectly logic and self consistent. We consider such things just a waste of time, but actually we hijack true logic. Though, it more or less works and even has got a name (generalization)

rather this than all dying from global warming, which is happening, we're fucked

@@TheHadesShade I wish that I was allowed to use this citation method, I usually use it when making a point on the internet.

This Place why not to the flying spegety Munster

This Place i hate pople that hate on muslims beacose they say they terrorist but not true.. 0001% are. they rasist

This Place I

well, the button on the right is also the dislike button.

Maybe if you made more freakin content! *whip crack sound*.

Oh my gosh, you're right...

How do we develop critical thinking? Do you think it comes from watching debates on youtube, learning about the history of science and ideas (watching documentaries on youtube), being thrown headfirst into reality, and sometimes arguing with people on youtube? I never questioned that school improved our ability to critical thinking until Taleb pointed out that Communist countries' children did really good on tests despite having really bad economies, and Bryan Caplan argued that if schooling improves us as people then someone who dropped out of school at 12th grade would do just as good as someone who graduated and not anything similar to someone who dropped out at 8th grade when controlling other factors...

It's very sad that this is a top comment. Shame on you NoriMori

Not really seeing how the video's been out for 1 hour.

TyphoonZebra it really is though

I will agree though, but give it a week or so and it will probably get A LOT more.

Well, it further demonstrates his point. We're nation of vapidity. Some dog taking a shit someone's face will gain in the millions of views in a day. This one doesn't even get in the hundred of thousands despite he has 129K subscribers.

well aside from the animation,the rest of the vid is pretty shit,

Tbh, I usually roll my eyes on that kind of comment when saying this about channels with over 100k subscribers. But in this case, I will agree, considering the quality of the content, and particularly the production value.

Part of that may be because he uploads rather irregularly!

"Facts don't care about your feelings"

and your feelings don't care about facts, that is da problem

Aitor Rosell Humans are not always rational creatures, so our reasoning isn’t always either. That is both a fundamental flaw and fundamental benefit of humanity

Fact over feelings

@@MistahFox That phrase is all too often used by hypocrites who only care about the truth when it involves the other "tribe" and not their one.

THIS.

I think this is similar to the one show in the video "Cognitive bias codex": cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg

... upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/The_Cognitive_Bias_Codex_-_180%2B_biases%2C_designed_by_John_Manoogian_III_%28jm3%29.png

Maxander2001 close enough and losslessly compressed. thank you.

No. A: It would be meters long. B: By the time the first was made, the second would probably be 1/4 meter longer.

more like nipplets! haha

Triplets named Nat, Pat and Tat. The trouble began when you found you had no _tit for Tat_.

And this of course would greatly diminish world suck

"were as commonplace as regular literacy" Except in many countries (including the US) regular literacy is rather uncommon as well.

but a society with only skepticism wouldn't function as well.

Beanzoboy You're right, not everyone is literate, but many people are, or they at least have basic reading and writing skills. Think about how if you go back in time far enough it used to be the case that only scholars and the rich and powerful could read or write at all. That's a total contrast with today. The same change will occur with scientific literacy here in the information age. Future people will look back at us the way we look back at societies hundreds of years ago noting how widespread scientific understanding and ability is in their time compared to what it is right now. As scientific technology becomes cheaper and more widespread and as the pressure to survive makes us turn to scientific and technological progress to solve problems it is simply a matter of time (so long as some catastrophe doesn't wipe us out, which just a matter of time until that happens too)

Kalistic Modiani It seems you are taking a rather strict interpretation of what I am trying to say about skepticism. By skepticism I mean *the understanding that you shouldn't necessarily take everything at face value or just accept everything blindly or uncritically*. It is about being free in your own mind to take a step back from something and look at it from various angles, to really consider it thoughtfully and thoroughly rather than reactively and without care. Its about being free to question anything (and freeing yourself to,) and develop skills inquiry to really investigate things and understand them rather than be deceived by tricks and illusions and lies

when? :P

Lakshay Modi the gay frogs. Look up Alex Jones gay frogs

Oh I thought it was a Republican thing, didn't know he started that :P

@@lakshaymd He was right, though.

mrsuperguy2073 Subtle?

ikr, now i will be late to work

i like buttons

I pressed some buttons on your posts

You can actually, if you press the left first, then the right will do nothing. If you press the right first, then the left will override it. However, pressing the left first may prevent you from wanting to press the right button as it's possible that pressing buttons becomes something you disagree with now having all true knowledge. Therefore you should press the right button then the left button.

What if I could push a button to make all of my incorrect ideas correct? For example, If I think the Earth is round, and it's actually flat, I could push the button and make the Earth round.

Eric Minecire Oooh! Here goes. On surface inspection, this button #3 accomplishes the goal of the original left button, but only for yourself, and in the "opposite" way: the thing that moves is reality instead of your beliefs. The prickly thing about the function of button #3 is that there are other people with beliefs, and 1) you probably have some beliefs _about the beliefs of others,_ but also 2) this is definitely not the case for everyone. So because people and their beliefs are part of reality, some beliefs will change along with the world and others would stay unaligned. So it looks like button presses of this kind would be detectable by people about whose beliefs you hold no beliefs. We do get sifferent results depending on who presses it, like the right button. There's a problem with the formulation though. With the other two buttons it wasn't necessary to be able to fully articulate your beliefs: when X presses the right button, all beliefs outside of X's brain that contradict some belief held by X could just be negated; when X presses the left button, all beliefs in all brains that contradict factual reality could just be negated in that brain. But with button #3 it is necessary to articulate all of your beliefs in order to describe the specific outcome, which is a more difficult problem. If P implies Q, and X believes P, can we say X "implicitly" believes Q even if X doesn't know P implies Q? I don't know actual epistemology and I'll stop here lol. Hope this partial explanation helped.

We do. At least in Ontario. It might be a good idea to make philosophy mandatory though.

We do. But the teacher has 3 jobs to get by so she just teaches from the book, and the books were chosen by the politicians. We should also drop philosophy. Philosophy is the art of justifying your conclusions in reverse. If someone wants it as an elective that is fine, but I don't see a real bonus to it

@@RobinTheBot If not philosophy, they should at least teach fallacies in English class so that students can support their theses better.

@@ctrlaltshift 100% agreed. With practical application so it sticks.

RebelBeamMaster X84 Not Philosophy. Philosophy is not useful for everyday life and more often than not goes over people’s heads, especially younger minds. Sciences and Maths should receive a greater focus and have fallacies taught in English and Social Studies/Civics.

deniz-usta Gedik +

deniz-usta Gedik how it should be: science: there's a problem people: well, let's review your methods and materials to see if they actually make sense and see if we can confirm you findings and ensure that there is a casual relationship rather than just a correlation, because that's what science actually is. Also, holy fuck, did an abstract concept just speak?! how it really is: guy who paid 100 grand for a degree that told him that something was fact: I'm confirming what I was told was fact without ever challenging the basis of the premise. people: If anyone dares question this man, you are a heretic and kill puppies!

Stephan Phillips there is a thing in science called "peer review" which is specifically designed to weed out studies that aren't correct. The crucial word here is "peer", someone who knows as much things about something as the one doing the research. You can't let illiterate people doing that job, you can't let people decide if a paper on quantum chromodynamics is done correctly or not. The same goes for any other field, including controversial ones such as climate science or medical research.

Bold Chocolate Man Yes but peer review doesn't make any of them completely immune to biases themselves and sharing similar mental environments would make the data that they see as right more like to conform to one another. But wait, sorry nevermind they're never wrong cause they agree with one another. The Science community has never agree on anything wrong, like a flat earth or anything as being right....Right? Oh, once again, my mistake that was past dumb, not real science. Modern science is better and right-er.

+Christian Mooney The belief that the earth was flat was not founded based on science. Even the discovery that the Earth is actually round happened long before the scientific method was ever invented. It wasn't "bad science" or "old science," it just wasn't science. You're going to have to come up with a better example.

I have read the Paris Agreement and it seems reasonably useful and logical to me. What problems do you have with it?

The goal of keeping global warming under 2° celcius will still kill milions. Having no goals, would kill billions.

A garbage bill that was supported by about all the countries in the world. The US economy will be shit too when the earth turns Manhattan into a waterpark.

Darth Mawrak It's an agreement where the US can set their own goals. We're more developed and can switch to renewables faster, but China and India are completing their development and have yet to peak. Their goal is to steady and then to drop output. Our goal, as biggest polluter per capita population, is to lead the charge.

Well compared to pollution per capita it's more than fair. Nobody is aiming to "solve" it. We aim to stave off the worst. It is quite possible to get the pollution down, in a developed country. People forget that China and India are still very poor and "backwards". many in their population still rely on burning firewood and widows for warmth. But your point is correct that if they Double or triple their pollution, we won't be a step further. But I thought that the plan was to be co2 neutral by 2050, and not just let them pollute?

Sadly, doing so will make any channel overrated. In my view, channel with less videos is good because it means only videos that are considered good will be uploaded (unless actual work put into videos is low for that channel). Meanwhile a channel which has many and daily uploads will suffer in quality since even videos which are not that great could make it in as a filler.

ratelslangen Much truth. We have people who want to be bakers and make the best donuts! And then we have people who want have power, wealth, and domination... what a eccentric world we live in.

Geoffreyvexer Wow, I can't believe you'd separate those two like that. Don't you know there are people who fall into both camps?!

+Geoffreyvexer Which one do you think is which? Because the capitalist would want to make cheap, delicious donuts that you'd want to buy so they can make a profit whilst the socialists would make you wait in line for hours to eat shit quality donuts that are in short supply.

samiamtheman 73 Well obviously with that example I'd want my money the good donut!

Geoffreyvexer When a totalitarian country has control over a supply of donuts, they don’t give a shit on what you think about the donuts.

the best comment on here and it only has 3 upvotes. i really don't understand whats wrong with people anymore.

Nunya Baznus Upvotes? This isn't reddit lol. But I know what you meant :P Jack Laurence It's so cool you can do that! I struggle with this kind of thing when just having a normal conversation lmao - someone can say something that's obvious but I have no clue, and vice versa, just because of how I understand and use words.

This just made me remember a conversation I had the other day. I was with two friends and I was talking with one of them about something. And then the other one started saying we were wrong and explaining the same thing we were saying in the first place. *How you say things* is often as important as *what you're saying*

Gaming Sans Frontier Trending is ruled by idiots. Do you really think video mocking idiots will get past idiots ?

@@glovesforsocks4603 your part of the problem.

@@StupidSmut no

@@glovesforsocks4603 yes

pretty sure ben shapiro doesnt believe in climate change

@@MrWizardjr9 that doesn't mean all of his ideas are wrong. That's literally one of the points in this video.

This is the important comment here. There are lots of people that are called climate change deniers, not because they opposed climate change, but because the proposed solutions to climate change are increased government interference, and the form that that interference takes is important and possibly dangerous.

88michaelandersen Well, the free market certainly isn't taking action on climate change. Look at countries that meet their IPCC goals. More often than not, it's government action that meets the goals, not private action.

actually science wants you to prove it wrong, that is what science is about, triying to demonstrate things and trying to prove wrong itself constantly, that way what remain should be near the truth

@@jamescarmody4713 have you actually looked at the difference between economically free and economically restricted countries? The freer the economy, the cleaner the country

(claps)

I wonder if it's a clever double bait, as in the "alarmists" interpretation of "deniers" thought process, or are you actually exhibiting the same flaws in critical thinking talked about in this very video. Either way, guess i'll bite. It's really not that simple. The "deniers" mindset isn't that a better planet is bad, it's that the consequences of our actions aren't sufficiently good for their cost. Imagine if US decided to switch to clean energy. To disincentivize usage of fossil fuels in cars a 1$ per mile tax is introduced. This money is used to make wind turbines and solar plants. As a result electric car makers are now billionaires, food and everything that's not made locally is much more expensive due to shipping expenses. What good is a clean planet to our children if they can't afford to buy food? What's even crazier is if one believes that climate isn't changing then this utter fuckery with the economy is completely for nothing. One might argue that the proposed scenario is ridiculous and would never happen (it wouldn't). But i feel that it underlines the core problem pretty well. Factories will always produce waste, what differs is how they handle it. We will continue to use more and more energy, which is much more easily gained from fossil fuels than the sun. So rationalizing living worse now so that the planet is better 100 years down the line isn't the kind of long term thinking humans are good for.

@HeWhoShamesNarwhals Exactly. If someone is willing to pay an infinitely large amount of money for an infinitely small reduction in the Earth's temperature, they're a moron. Not to mention, over the course of 100 years, technology is going to get a whole lot better. Assuming 3% annual economic growth, our descendants will be approximately 20 times richer than we are, and will be 20 times more equipped to handle climate change than us (think: carbon sequestration with nuclear power, cloud-seeding, putting silver particles into the air, genetically engineering carbon sequestering algae, etc.). On the other hand, if we cripple our economy trying to slow down global warming, the economic costs may outweigh the environmental benefits. Yeah, fuck the alarmists. Fuck'em all.

Fuck people who think that rich assholes tax breaks are more important than our health and the future of our planet.

@david21686 The thing is that we may not have a hundred year. If temperatures rise too much, most coastal cities are going to be in deep shit, and that's going to cripple our economy too, since most centers of trade are in coastal areas. Edit : "infinitely large amount of of money for an infinitely small reduction in the Earth's temperature"? Way to not seem biased. Do you have numbers? If you do, cite them from a primary, peer-reviewed source.

Axel, I sure wish to live in Canadian.

RapierNeedleCrime Canucks suck.

I’m Canadian and Canada sucks.

QuantumSwag Ya this guy is clearly a Global Warming fruit nut, he completely ignores all climate change data comes from the IPCC a UN left wing think tank who's sole purpose is to keep the theory alive.

Tbh I think that climate change hasn't been studied enough. It's really uncertain at most, and both sides either ignore it completely, or advocate it without a second thought.

I know this comment's a year old but I kinda feel like I have to address the bullshit here: First, "The earth is heating up and cooling down at the same time" does not disprove climate change or even come close to doing it. If I'm say, filling up a car's gas tank with gas, and there's a leak in the gas tank causing gas to leak out, does that automatically mean that the amount of gas in the car is remaining static? Of course it doesn't, it depends entirely on the size of the leak. Just because there's a reactive pushback effect as a consequence of the initial warming does not automatically meaning the net result can't be higher temperature. And yes, the Earth does go through periods of warming and cooling, scientists are acutely aware of this. Scientists are also acutely aware of the fact that while these periods have happened multiple times, there is NO example of a transition being this fast in observable history. What should be taking several thousand years has happened in a couple hundred years (that just so happens to coincide with the industrial revolution).

@@darthvaderreviews6926 Like I said earlier, we should probably just put more money into studying climate change to be 100% sure about what's actually going on. There are several decent science-based theories and explanations on both sides of the argument about what's happening, but we've gotten so divided over it we haven't tried to figure it out because we assume all the questions have been answered and 'the other side' is just made up of a bunch of idiots who don't want to look at facts because they have their own secret agendas. If we're really interested in finding out the truth, we should find the facts so we can agree on them in the first place.

@@ctrlaltshift Sure, I don't object to studying climate change further. Hell, if it turned out climate change was all somehow BS, that'd be a huge weight off the world's shoulders, I'd be quite happy if that was the case. However, from the current evidence we have, a few facts seem to be very much confirmed: -The earth is steadily warning overall at a rate we've never observed before -The earth warming like this is going to have severe consequences decades down the line, especially if we're unprepared for them -Human activity is a contributor and unless scientists have overlooked something quite significant, the primary contributor Under the circumstances, you can see why people are worried about that. You'll never hear me decry the idea of more research (excluding research into issues that are already settled, but climate science is so complex of course there's things we don't know), but I do think we can't allow ourselves to remain inactive until it's too late, and to be frank I think large chunks of the climate change skeptics, primarily those in governmental positions, are not going to be convinced by any amount of research anyway.

Well, either radiometric dating is accurate, there is a massive conspiracy manufacturing the data, or it is a massive coincidence that the age of things we carbon date happens to be consistent with the age we would expect of things near them. I.e. We've never found a modern Cow skeleton in a strata of rock that dates to the Cretaceous. It's not faith to pick the most plausible of those explanations and accept radiometric dating for its predictive power and the observable, demonstrable, physical mechanisms by which it works. Unless those data points are part of the conspiracy. It's either, everyone is lying remarkably consistently and has been for 80+ years, or unstable particles decay as described and used in radiometric dating. One of these positions is to accept the available evidence. The other is a way to ignore the available evidence, and always proceeds it's users attempt to make claims that run counter to said evidence, or they wouldn't need to discredit it. Only the position of ignoring evidence for no reason is faith. The position of accepting evidence that produces predictable results isn't faith.

Aside from several really obvious jabs at the flat-earthers and gay frog brouhaha, also the "I'm an infallible Genius" frisk in a kind of way, I don't see how the latter half is riddled with biases? Would you elaborate a bit?

Zilkat, it was definitely a bit "tongue and cheek" Edit: But I agree that he also committed some. Something that you could argue in his defense would be the fact that he has to keep it concise and he's only a (dumb and angry) human too. But your point still stands.

Fallacy from hypocrisy; non-sequitur - 9:18 just because Republicans are using the same funding system for different projects doesn't mean their initial doubts on the validity of the research obtained by that system are unwarranted or incorrect. Argument from authority; assuming own position as common knowledge - 11:21 implying the contrary view is a tiny minority without demonstrating it or talking about the research Cherrypicking - 12:17 under his breath he says there are some genuine points, but never goes into them. Instead, he focuses 99% of the time on what is wrong, trying to lead the viewer to the conclusion that the overall argument must be wrong. Intellectually honest discussion tries to identify the strongest arguments for the opposing side and to dismantle them, not the weakest.

Zilkat 9:18 He is not saying that because Republicans funded other projects, that makes them invalid. He IS saying that Republicans (would potentially/has already) stop funding those who confirms a certain fact that contradicts with their agenda and give them to those who produce the results that comply. He's arguing that this process would be biased and a malpractice in general and undermines the integrity of scientific research, which it is, no matter who does it. Now, you could argue that's not the case, that the Republicans are not doing that, but that would just be a factual debate, and certainly not logical fallacies of *Tu quoque* or *Non-sequitur* . (also I thought he was talking about cognitive fallacies not logical fallacies?) 11:21 falls into the same category, 12:17 too. You are free to read more peer-reviewed journal and the book in question to make your own conclusion about that, he's just making a short internet video explaining cognitive fallacies and pointing out how some political figures/groups could potentially be abusing/are abusing that for crying out loud. It looks to me that you're just opposing his stance rather than his methodology, which contradicts your original claim, no matter how you wrap it up with "it's a fallacy", fundamentally they just stem from your disagreement with what he says, not how he achieved or presented them. Oh, and also we're all pricks and assholes and really really dumb. XD

The video isn't about climate change, it just uses climate change for demonstration. To use the book as an example, the conclusion isn't that the overall argument is wrong, it's that much of the argument is made using fallacious and dishonest reasoning.

Well perhaps we could all, in my case Americans, band together and create a expanded-private volunteer organization that funds scientists without bias. That's my best offer.

Uriah Jackson I watched a hank green video on the agreement he said the us was already in progress to do that to meet what the paper was saying. So my question is why sign it when its not holding anyone accountable seems dumb to me and we're already on the way to lowering emissions

China and India only have exemptions in the first place because they are developing nations. They aren't fully industrialized. Just pointing this out.

UNLESS you are willing to seriously discuss Eugenics and De-Population, we can skip to the part where we admit "the earth is fcuked, time to leave". except the problem is this: all the advancements and achievements made in space exploration were made by USA and Russia, and also UK and Canada with the "Canada Arm" and Canadian Astronauts on the ISS. you will notice there is a clear correlation pattern emerging that is fundamentally undeniable. ... its White Dudes that got us into Space. it was white christian conservative societies that fostered technological and scientific advancement in space exploration. you can deny this all you want but its the truth. We ARE in competition with China and India and underdeveloped nation for cheap manufacturing. limiting or stunting your own society and strangling industries with oppressive environmental regulations is basically giving a victory to your enemy. We are destroying the very thing that would allow us to get off earth and become an interplanetary species. it makes the most logical sense to push forward and advance western societies by whatever means necessary, pump as much offshore oil as we can, frack as much natural gas, make more coal power plants, whatever it takes to keep money inside the USA and increase economic power, so we can then Fund NASA and get us to mars, and eventually terraform planets and explore space. trying to make America into the world police, the worlds moral compass, is laughable and absurd. Every human on this earth is in competition with one another. if you refuse to play, you LOSE, simple as that.

The problem with that is that we can't super accurately predict when the next cold cycle will start. As you said it appears we are overdue but the periods between ice ages has varied. We can't rely on an iceage because at the current rate of heating it could be to late for us if it doesn't come soon, very soon (geologically speaking). If we want to last long enough to make it to the cold, we do need to make changes

I agree that accurate predictions are difficult, but the same truth applies to the "we won't last long enough unless we make changes" argument. The only thing we can really be relatively certain about, is the eventually, maybe soon, maybe later, the earth's environment will no longer be super friendly to humans. In my opinion, all the talk of delaying this, just distracts from the conversation we should be having, about how to prepare. (Just to clarify, I didn't mentioned the ice age to imply that it will cancel out global warming, I used it to demonstrate how the earth environment is going to become hostile soon, regardless.)

*We're all gonna die anyway! Might as well make it sooner rather than later!* Actually, though, I don't think we're due for another Ice Age yet. Now, I'm no weather man, but I think we're still on the rebound from the last Ice Age. However, the rate of climate change is far too extreme in comparison to the past, with human interference being the only reasonable culprit. While, yes, space exploration is important, as any half-functioning creature could tell you, using time-management to delay imminent death can give us MORE time to figure stuff out. Cause, obviously, we're all gonna die. Whether by an Ice Age, the sun, the universe giving up, entropy, all life will eventually stop; we need all the few precious moments of happiness we can get!

+whiz 85 The problem is, the debate on delaying imminent death is delaying the debate on *what can we do about it*, furthermore, it's creating a pushback from the oil companies and whoever, to fund research proclaiming the global warming is a myth to defend themeselves. If we stop this debate, they will no longer need to fund anti-climate change research, and we can focus on addressing how to handle the impending disaster. I personally think that life *can* exist forever, as long as we figure out how the Universe repeats and how to put ourselves outside of that process. But it'll take alot of progress and a lot less finger pointing.

+Empathy Lessons Climate change IS the impending disaster, but it is one of the few that we know can actually be pushed back, quite a fair distance. Look, I tend to view issues that involve the Earth and people; such as climate change, animal preservation, what to do about terrorism, what to do about famine, that kinda stuff; as "keeping a house clean" as it were. While it is an unending task, as there will ALWAYS be more stuff to do, it is nevertheless important; you live to much in a pig sty and the whole place will fall on top of you. However, it should never be the focus of all your attention. Space travel and continued technological advancement should be the driving goal, the passion one strives for in his day-to-day life. So it's a delicate balancing act between keeping your residence up-to-date without wasting all your time inside it, doing minor nitpicks. The beauty of the world, however, is that you can both keep your house neat AND follow your dreams, at the same time. You see what I mean? I hope I didn't just ramble about nothing. And about how life could exist forever. Probably not, if the second law of thermodynamics has anything to say, but I could be wrong. I dunno though, I kinda like knowing there's going to be a definite end. Kind of reflects the fragile preciousness of life or some shit.

Yeah he's biased for left wing. But the video is more of just telling us stuff about humans and why we argue so much. His bias doesnt really have anything to do with that does it?

Are we talking about how states he hates skeptics for generally not using scepticism correctly?

John Undefined lmaoooo thanks for the laugh. you have no reason to believe because you haven't searched for yourself for the multitudes of proof out there. instead of listening to people say "scientists say it is so" and you saying "show me" , you say "so what" . why are sea levels rising? why are species going extinct? why are weather patterns changing and becoming more extreme ? why are the corals bleaching ? why are global temperatures rising? there is so much evidence out there and it is obvious to see if you just took at it. you are exactly the person he is talking about I'm the video, those who seek to reaffirm their own views instead of clashing with opposing viewpoints to figure out the facts. Peer reviewed science is a FACT, not something to be argued or debated, because the debate has already been done by people much smarter than you. climate change is as much a fact as if I shoot someone in the head 5 times they will die. Or is that something you wish to debate? if you learnt nothing from watching this video and only seek to refute it instead of thinking about the points it presents , you are lost. Is the solar system a religion? is a round earth a religion? is the cause of any natural phenomena like meteor shower or volcanic explosion or tsunami a religion? as said in the video, you are not a skeptic for the purpose of drilling down to the facts, you are simply a skeptic for the sake of disagreement and unwillingness to face the truth. China is rampaging forward in green technology right now. they renamed it to climate change to make it more representative of what it actually is, firstly because 100 % of areas are not going to get hotter, and al gore gave global warming a bad name. If the improved nutrition of a class A causes them to grow taller than class B , would you point to a short person in class A and say nutrition isn't real? some places will get colder.

BenWillis please give me a source for that number being false

You know what, thumbs up man, that comment made me laugh and made my day.

+Nishant Ganesh let's say climate change is real (which probably is the case) and that it is partially man-made (which it probably is). what solutions to the problem do you propose that do not force us to ditch modern types of transportation, heavy industry and go full-vegan while living medieval lifestyles? we cannot prevent climate change without doing these. we can only slow it down by a negligible amount (which is around 0.2 degrees C by 2100 for the paris agreement from what i've heard), and that is just a waste of time and money. it doesn't matter if my great grandchildren do not have to face the problem if my great great grandchildren will have to.

@@domovoi_0 "you have no reason to believe because you haven't searched for yourself for the multitudes of proof out there." This exact line could easily come from a christian fundamentalist. If the proof was out there, and not hiding behind a pay-wall or a credentials-wall to keep the masses out, you could just present it. "why are sea levels rising?" Sea levels have always risen and fallen. And they continue to do so. "why are species going extinct?" This has happened for billions of years. "why are weather patterns changing and becoming more extreme?" They're not becoming more extreme. They are only reported more. "Peer reviewed science is a FACT" You might as well tell me the bible is a "fact" in all-caps. It went through a similar peer review. The people in control of publication decide what is and is not published. "because the debate has already been done by people much smarter than you." Translation: "Turn your brain off. Listen and believe." I tend to be practical. Your response to me is that of a religious zealot. I will look at evidence you present. But you give me "the debate was had by priests behind closed doors; you don't need to trouble yourself with the details, just believe what they tell you to believe."

Ok this comment is riddled with bias on your part. His point in the whole video is that yes, we are dumb and we do have the tendency to want to be right all the time, but whenever we have doubts on a topic or idea we should substantiate our doubts with evidence. "Being emotional" over something doesn't discredit the fact that he can still make an informed discussion on climate change or any topic of his choosing. Plus, this is just a topic he chooses because it's a good example demonstrating his point on how people don't back their "skepticism" with evidence. "Don't know much about it." What does that even mean? You are the expert now? Jeez, he's a RU-vidr, ask any scientist on climate change if you are seriously that dubious (be careful on selecting a scientist based on confirmation bias though!) You put out the "uncontroversial" claim that "carbon dioxide by itself does not warm the Earth significantly and needs the action of feedbacks." 3:10 gives a very good description on why you relying on this so called "common knowledge" is fallacious and wrong on its own. Plus, you didn't even substantiate your claim with a study that has been peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community, so it can't be supported. You talk about something with the IPCC misapplying some terms. Let's divulge into this: You still didn't refute the fact that the book discredits those who don't take their stance (11:53) relied on secondary instead of primary sources (12:00) not cite important claims (12:05) cherry pick and misapply ideas from studies (12:12) all to make a politicized "science." The book is still not a credible scientific source for climate change nor is it the expert on it. No one ever is an expert in anything. That's why science exists: so that we can peer review and make sure we have systems in place to better understand the world and by extension ourselves. You have literally complained about a RU-vidr calling out people that support false realities. Let that sink in.

"Ok this comment is riddled with bias on your part." Accusations of bias aren't arguments. If I made a factual mistake, explain where. "Plus, this is just a topic he chooses because it's a good example" I just explained that this was not a good example and that he made factual mistakes while pretending to call out factual mistakes. "You are the expert now? " I'm almost halfway through your comment and I'm still waiting for the actual arguments to start. No, I won't "ask any scientist", I'll read papers, like adults do. I estimate that this youtuber has read approximately zero climate papers in his life. "gives a very good description on why you relying on this so called "common knowledge" is fallacious and wrong on its own." It's neither "fallacious" nor "wrong". It is factual, so it can't be wrong, and it is an assertion given without demonstration, so it can't be a fallacy. I gave it without demonstration precisely because it is not a controversial point. Without feedbacks a doubling of CO2 concentration would only increase the Earth's mean temperature by about 1°C, which most people agree is not terribly serious. "Plus, you didn't even substantiate your claim with a study that has been peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community, so it can't be supported." I expect anybody talking about climate change to have _at least_ read something from the IPCC report. Have you? This statement can be easily found in it. Hell, it might even be in the summary for policy makers. Why don't you familiarize yourself with the topic before engaging in discussion? "You still didn't refute the fact that the book ..." What? I argue what I want to argue. If you want to argue something else, you make the argument. I'm not here to defend the book. I'm here to point out that this youtuber dun goofed while attempting to attack it, ironically engaging in the very behavior he attempts to criticize. "The book is still not a credible scientific source for climate change nor is it the expert on it. " A book can't be an expert. People can be experts. "You have literally complained about a RU-vidr calling out people that support false realities. Let that sink in." I can't even tell what that means. Next time before you start on a gish-galloping expedition, learn a little bit about the subject first. You don't know anything about the climate and it shows.

"Ok you haven't really responded to anything I have laid out, n" Yeah I did, what little there was. Come back once you've learned enough about climate change to make a cogent argument.

You saying "What little there was" doesn't mean you did anything. You haven't and I shown it. You just lack the ability to step out of your comfort zone to explore other ideas that might also be true. I just provided you with two links on how to argue, you can take note, I already know how to speak on my own behalf. No need to be condescending and throw some ad hominem lib at me.

If you are REALLY not going to respond, I will at least explain what I mean. You not responding means that you haven't taken my claims and actually responded. You just said "It's wrong, look at my argument." You haven't weighed or said anything relative to what I have laid out, you just flat out advanced your own arguments blindly without really taking into account what I have said.

I believe you have a point here.