How Well Do Scientists Understand Global Warming? | Climate Change on America Uncovered

Follow by Email
Global warming shapes public policy, taxation, and spending. So how well do scientists really understand global warming and/or climate change? And do 97% of scientists really agree that it's caused by human activity? Get a cool MOVA globe like mine! Pledge your support to help us grow! Subscribe for updates or visit us on Facebook! or Twitter! #globalwarming #climatechange alexandria ocasio cortez green new deal

Comments from Youtube

Jack Lankford : Your so much better than literally any news channel on TV.

Damien Tong : 5 people got the joke. The rest are mesmerized by the spinning globe

MrGrenade McBoom : "Global Warming can be both real and not well understood." Bravo. Seriously.

silver tamman : That "China Uncensored" guy is funnier then You, sir.

Jazz Jackrabbit : There is only solution to this touchy dilemma. Let's get more Nuclear Reactors going, and watch the CO2 levels plummet.

Edward Badlands : This is the first time I’ve ever seen the 97% claim explained, ever, thank you! No wonder why rational people have such disdain for most news media outlets except for yours, you guys are awesome!!

Ravi Soni : You should create a channel on Russia as well. I'm a huge fan of your antics and your content.

Samuel Pezzetta : As someone who has a degree in Environmental Sciences, I approve of this video. Climate change and pollution are​ real but they are not nearly as well understood as the media tries to make you believe.

Hothead Ted : You avoid making a clear stance. However, that by no means exempts you from criticism for your misleading claims. Scientific Consensus- 2/3 of the papers on global warming may not have described the cause of it, but that is not to say that they are uncertain. There are plenty of other purposes for a scientific paper on global warming, with the cause being just one of them. As for the true consensus, I'm not really that interested in it, as it does not prove anything. Younger Dryas- What you say is somewhat true, but very misleading. Some of the most prominent theories for what cause the Younger Dryas are a volcanic eruption, an impact with a comet, and a supernova. Regardless of which is true, we know the cause must have been a major, dramatic, and easily pinpoint-able event that would have been incredibly obvious had we been alive to observe it. This is in contrast with the current, much more subtle rise in temperatures. Sea Levels Rise- Not sure why you are making a point of this, you already acknowledged that the temperatures are increasing. Al Gore's Graph- A rise in CO2 causes increased temperatures, and increased temperatures will also lead to a rise in CO2. There have been other events in history to create temperature rises, none of which apply to the current temperature rise. The only reasonable explanation for the current temperature rise is CO2. Water Vapor- While a greenhouse gas, water vapor is not taken very seriously as a cause for global warming as the atmosphere is limited to how much water vapor it can hold. Anyway, for how concerned you seemed to be at the beginning of the video about what the scientists have to say ,you go on to analyze claims that are not from scientists, but Al Gore and media outlets. Al Gore and The Independent do have something in common: neither are scientists, and therefore their shaky understandings of science by no means reflect on what actual scientists have to say.

Toronto Transit Channel : As a member of the scientific community, the majority of scientific papers relating to climate change, while they do not explicitly state whether climate change is a result of human activity, are, in most cases, not actually studying climate change as a human activity. They are studying aspects of climate change and how they fit into the big picture. A good portion of them are actually present trying to debunk myths with greenhouse gases. That's how science works: while scientists do generally agree that climate change is influenced by humans (it may not be 97 percent, maybe 90 or even 60%, it's still a majority), our job is to remain unbiased and test different factors that affect the climate. When we are studying aspects that may not be the fault of human interaction (global wobbling, sunspots, changes to the water cycle, magnetic field shifts, volcanism, etc), or aspects of human interaction that are minimally influential (Increase in surface absorption due to roads, etc), no conclusions can generally be drawn that eliminate HUMAN-INFLUENCED climate change as a whole. This is because, as you said, climate change is complicated, and many factors are at play here. If you narrow the search to only greenhouse gas (with the exception of water vapor), you'll get an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community supporting the notion that an increase in greenhouse gases is, in fact, very likely influenced by human actions on Earth. Other papers tend to not get as much publicity because they cannot generate conclusions. If a bunch of reputable scientists from different areas of the world came out and said that Global Wobbling was causing climate change, I guarantee that the scientific community would be all over it. Science isn't cut and dry, we don't and will never know the full mechanisms of the world. However, our knowledge keeps increasing exponentially by the decade.

SangoProductions213 : Of course, "not mentioning a conclusion on whether or not humans are the cause of climate change" doesn't neccesarily mean that they are were claiming "We don't know enough to conclude whether or not humans are the result of climate change." It means...they didn't mention whether or not humans were the cause. I mean, not every paper on climate change is about who/what is to blame. The situation is less like "Almost everyone who emailed me like me," and more like "Of those who like any pizza, do they like Cheese." Except less opinion and taste, and more facts.

MAKER HAPPY : ManBearPig is real, I'm super cereal guys!!!!!!!!!

Alexander Morgan : I've always liked your videos, but this one showed me who you really are. I'mma start supporting you more as soon as I get my bigger checks, Chris. You're awesome. -Morgan

the kindly man : Shelly writes your jokes. Was that a roast? Edit "I'm a comedian who's jokes aren't even that funny"

MrGrenade McBoom : I started to upvote at the Amun-Ra joke, but I slammed the thumb at "a comedian who's jokes aren't even that funny." The self-awareness!

Scott Perry : Originally the tobacco industry denied that smoking caused lung cancer. As that position became increasingly untenable, their strategy adapted and focussed on uncertainties. History may not repeat itself; but it certainly seems to rhyme.

THE.WRIGHT.FLIGHT : Good Amun-Ra reference Chris, well done and well appreciated :)

GOOGLE TAQIYYA : You pay Madam Romani the fortune teller to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. A decade passes and you return to that same Madam Romani. You pay Madam Romani to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. A decade passes and you return to that same Madam Romani. You pay Madam Romani to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. After several decades of evidence that the Madam Romani obviously has no clue about what she is predicting what is the next step ? You pay Madam Romani to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. A decade passes and you return to that same Madam Romani. You pay Madam Romani to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. A decade passes and you return to that same Madam Romani. You pay Madam Romani to read your [climate] future. Imminent doom and despair is what she declares. A decade passes and you return to that same Madam Romani.

Mark Ramkhelawan : So you can fix the climate by taxing the western nations citizens and sending it to everyone else. ...RIGHT. .....

Geomar : Just thanks for being a real journalist and not inserting your own opinions.

Trent X : You weren't wrong, YouTube put a Wikipedia link to global warming below your video...

Augusto Schroeder : Climate Change seems to be a massive problem of Confirmation Bias after it has been politicized.

hang da clown : you haven't read my emails?! how DARE you sir!

Jonathan Schubert : Chris what you lack in humor you more than make up for in self awareness and honesty. Love you brother

GOOGLE TAQIYYA : The only way the left can continue to lie is to cling to the local weather stations. Then they can continue to adjust the historical temperatures in any way they wish. This is what they have been doing. We have satellites which cannot be adjusted and these are the temps they want to de-emphasize.

interloop : Did someone save the video already? You know, before it gets deleted

skeetorkiftwon : How well do scientists understand how to build cars and cellphones? That's how well we understand climate change. What you choose to believe is proportional to how much work you're going to do to understand it. But you're statistically likely to be an idiot, so your opinion matters. With logic like that, design and build your own damn cars, phones, and climate change model.

GOOGLE TAQIYYA : The charts are lies. For the last 20 years global temps have flatlined. The false charts say otherwise. Total propaganda. Watch Tony Heller vids for Global Warming facts the left has said historically compared to reality. The hottest year in the last century is 1936 ! Where on their chart does this show ? Nowhere.

Grigoriy Morozov : That not a journalism, that's failing is second-grade school logic.

The Iranian Liberal : Even if it is the case that most climate papers don't discuss whether or not humans are the cause, the ones that do repeatedly affirm that humans are that cause. Only a tiny percentage even deny it or even say "not sure" by your own research. There is so much evidence for AGW its not even funny. So much so now that the burden of proof is now on you to deny it. Just because Alexandria Ocasio Cortez' green new deal was moronic doesn't mean AGW isn't real.

Rea Ality : Finally! The real common sense 'Global Climate Change" argument.

drax325 : The problem is journalists and politicians are reporting science, and not qualified scientists. And when you point to the null result papers. That tells you nothing about what it studied. Many studies study a small aspect, many which might not be directly related like bark growth or something, and if they don't come to a positive conclusion, that doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist. Or that they are uncertain if GW as a whole is real.

B RI : My god! I feel I can't really trust any tv news channels now! Thanks Chris keep up the good work!

Jack Dale : Not one single academy of science in any country on the planet disputes the the conclusions of the IPCC.

Ben Franklin : The globe is cool.... But it's not $100+ cool lol

Realitätsgewinn : The only thing I believe from Al Gore is the existence of manbearpig.

SuperRavensblood : You get a like just for the clever Amun-Ra joke.

Jack Dale : Enough is know about climate change to make policy decisions. The precautionary principle comes into play.

Jack Dale : What percentage of papers on evolutionary biology make a statement on their position in natural selection?

Francisco Bastos : hi Chris can you make a video about Netflix, does Netflix have an agenda?

Neil Dio : very well explained Agent Smith..

garith21 : 1) "So why is it not 100%" The same reason evolution or general relativity don't have a 100% consensus, scientists are skeptics by nature. 2) "The study didn't take down why they took no position" Simple, they simply didn't state a position in their abstract. 3) "Sea level rises have risen and fallen dramatically" Yes, and many of these changes often took hundreds of millions of years, and are you suggesting that living in such conditions would be good for us today? This just seems like a red herring and nothing more. And FYI it happens by simple scientific principles like thermal expansion 4) "Al Gore...." Isn't a scientist I actually have a great distaste when anyone considers him an authority on scientific matters. 5) "water vapor is by far the most abundant of the greenhouse gases...." Yes, but water vapor can only act as an amplifier of warming because it can only stay in the atmosphere if it gets warmer first, thus it can never be a cause of warming 6) "I don't think they can predict 100 years from now....." Climate by definition is long term, the short term is actually more difficult to predict than the long term because short term events actually have a greater effect in well....the short term and are less of a factor in the long term. It's like seeing a flood in a desert one day and thinking it stops being a desert. 7) "the temperature went up first...." Yes...This is actually a prediction in the paper that this data was taken from, this has always been assumed. The initial trigger is milankovitch factors which lead in and out of glaciations. When leaving a glaciation it first warms the southern hemisphere like where the vostock ice station is, then CO2 rises with a lag time which amplifies that small local warming to lead to a more global deglaciation as it warms in the north where CO2 actually leads warming. Then when milankovitch factors go in the other direction the positive feedback also follows that with a similar lag time. As such there is no claim that it's the initial cause of temperature rise in Vostok would be CO2 when it was always assumed to be milankovitch factors. 8) "In 2000 the Independent...." Isn't a scientific journal...that's where your statement should end. But instead you blame climate scientists not cited based on this non scientific article....seems reasonable? 9) "Because research that says humans are causing global warming gets a lot more funding than research that takes no stance or has a dissenting voice" Such organizations that do take a stance are currently facing large budget cuts precisely because they do endorse man made climate change, so using your reasoning shouldn't they all be crying saying "okay okay it's all a lie"? Anyways, we know quite well what's the primary cause of most of the warming over the last half century, it is indeed CO2. CO2 has unique fingerprints as to how it warms and cools in the atmosphere and this has been observed as a constant fingerprint over several decades. It: a) Warms the troposphere while simultaneously cooling the upper stratosphere (strongest fingerprint) b) Warms at night as much as day c) Warms at the poles, particularly the north pole faster than the equator Keep in mind we're not talking about small amounts of energy in our global climate we're talking about many nuclear bombs worth of energy across the face of the planet each day and CO2 draws it's ability to warm from the sun. Which keep in mind has actually been cooler over the last 50 years. There's nothing that both simultaneously has these types of fingerprints and can compensate for our lower solar energy intake.

Hunter Ellis : I might actually buy one of those globes, thanks Chris.

Syrian Alpechi : Studies about climate change is a mess. I dont really know what to believe thats why i believe the Earth is flat. But seriously Human induced and Polarity shift from Earth can be both contributing factors to climate change. Thats why i believe for now

Leo husky : positive representation and very interesting topic, the only thing made me disappointed is using wikipedia as a reliable information source it’s really just rubbish, aside to wiki i found it surprisingly good and informative. thank you for making this video🙏

investbo : Al Gore: He’s half man, half bear, and half pig; he’s ‘ManBearPig’! Why don’t you believe me?! I’m super cereal guys!!

Bang Tang : You pronounced Kiribati wrong, the “ti” in Kiribati is actually a “s” sound, so it’s more like “Kiribass”

Army Mobility Officer : YOUTUBE is just another example of white privilege keeping a man (I hope I have not misgendered you) of color (I hope I have not misraced you) down.

Charlie Toes : Co2 is the gas of life the more Co2 the more plants grow meaning more food