Importance of Natural Resources

Climate Denial: A Measured Response

– [Hbomb] (failing at shilling) This…video…pbbbb— [unsettling squishing noises] Aww, you like your peanut butter, don’t you, Mortimer? Aww, who’s a good boy? Awww….. Hey, friends! Did you know that climate change is DEFINITELY real and DEFINITELY affected by human action? I had to ask, because, well… some people deny that that’s happening, and this video is about them. Now, I’m not here to pretend that there’s a “real debate” in science about whether CO2 affects global temperatures or whether humans have a hand in it. The science *is* settled, and the deniers are wrong. [tape scratches] – [Reasonable Bear] Oh yeah. (scoffs) Call them “deniers” to make them look bad. That’s a classic They’re not climate change, they’re just skeptical that it’s happening. See, it’s actually very smart when you put it *that* way. And look how this DEGENERATE *refuses* to engage in reasonable debate with people who disagree with him. (scoffing) That’s not “rational” at all! How can the issue be settled if you haven’t debunked your opponents’ points? – [Hbomb] Look, mate, I hate to be dogmatic, but— [both scream in shock] But I think any reasonable analysis of climate deniers HAS to contend with the *extreme* deficit of… ACTUAL FACTS on the side of people claim to be the ones who know the facts better than the actual researchers. When someone specifically positions themselves as “pro-science” and fetishizes the idea of reason, the *fact* they’re being UNREASONABLE is something that needs to be brought up. We’re gonna get into it, but if someone’s evidence is so poor that even me, a gaming YouTuber who got peanut butter in his ear when he was setting up the first shot for this video, can see the holes in it, then… something’s REALLY gone wrong here! So, in this video, we’re going to look at some prominent climate deniers, what they have to say, why what they say is clearly wrong, why they seem to believe it anyway, how people get to be climate deniers, and what we can do to have (flubs line, music stops)…make there…be…less of them (laughs)… NAILED IT! I suppose one thing you could do is just let the ice sheets melt. I mean, the problem would just kind of go away if most of them drowned. (mockingly) “Oooh! Ahhh!! “I’m dying! “Ohhh, I guess I was wrong! Oooooops!” [laughter] [LOUDER laughter] WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! [Hbomberguy jingle] Now, climate denialism doesn’t come in just one flavor. No, like ogres, the issue has layers. And unlike ogres, climate deniers are not all-stars, (coyly) although the ice they skate IS getting pretty thin, and the water’s getting warm, so they might as well swim. Smash Mouth’s “All-Star” was about climate change *Crowderly* CHANGE MY MIND Deniers range from claiming the climate isn’t actually changing at all to admitting that the climate changes, but that humans don’t have an effect, and it’s probably just normal that things have gotten so warm lately “I’m sure it’ll go back to normal soon!” to claiming that CO2 doesn’t REALLY have an effect on the climate to saying that even it does, it’s actually GOOD for us since plants need CO2 To saying it’s real, but it’s not THAT bad, and scientists are exaggerating To saying…(mockingly distressed) well, look, I’m confused!! A lot of people are saying a lot of different things, (hams voice out) so I guess it’s still up for debate and WE SHOULDN’T DO ANYTHING!! (delighted) Ah, that’s great! You see? Even cowards have a place in denialism! If you haven’t heard of Ben Shapiro, then your YouTube recommendations bar is glitched out. Shapiro is a conservative commentator who’s very popular with people who already agree with him. And he’s REALLY good at winning debates with teenagers who haven’t finished university and don’t have all the media training he has. He was editor-at-large of Breitbart for four years, and he’s written ten books about how it’s the left’s fault that conservatism keeps making things worse for everyone. He’s a true intellectual gymnast! The kind that can write tweets decrying when the left talk about how they’re “on the right side of history”, and then publish an entire book called (snickering) “The Right Side of History”! Here he is, dipping his…(tries to keep a striaght face) webbed flippers into the pool of climate change with his signature Shapiro intellect! [Shapiro] So let’s say, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let’s say, five feet, over the next hundred years. Say, ten feet by the next hundred years, and puts all the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Right, which… let’s say all of that happens. You think that people aren’t going to just sell their homes and move? [dead silence] [multiple ax blows, multiple Hbomb grunts] (bemused yelling) JUST ONE SMALL PROBLEM… SELL THEIR HOUSES TO WHO, BEN?!!! FUCKING AQUAMAN?!!! [tape scratching] [Monty Python Intermission music] [music continues amidst distorted scraping] [music fades into the distance] [raspberry-fart] [cheerful beat with the sounds of happy children] [sounds distorts into horror] [heavy sigh] [hangs ax] It was watching this talk by Shapiro that got me wanting to look at and analyze climate denial in more detail. Because this absolute genius-brained idea that everyone affected by things like floods can just sell their homes to people who… would love to buy a flooding house, apparently… and move somewhere else… Well, it begs a *lot* of questions about how these people think. How have things reached a point, where someone thinks they can get away with saying something this ridiculous in front of an audience of people? And how have things reached the point where some people in that audience won’t recognize it for the obvious ignorant bullshit that it is? This led me down a particular hole of discovery. I realized that climate deniers aren’t just wrong, they’re obviously wrong. In very clear ways, and that makes the whole thing so much more interesting. How does this work if it’s so paper thin? Take, for example, Steven Crowder. (voiceover) Steven Crowder is a conservative political commentator, and Wikipedia tells me he’s a comedian, which… I’m glad they mentioned, or I wouldn’t have noticed. Crowder’s YouTube channel is his Special Place to wax lyrical about topical conservative issues. He’s “a rational thinker who doesn’t play by anyone’s rules and will follow Truth wherever It leads!” Although it always seems to lead to whatever he wanted to believe in the first place. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that he never has to change his mind about anything! Crowder has a big beef with Bill Nye, as we’ve seen in the past, but that’s a byproduct of his more general climate denial. Of course, Crowder denies being a climate denier. Crowder positions himself as a “climate realist” who acknowledges that the climate has changed and is changing. It’s just not changing… in the way that… all the scientists say it does. In other words, he’s denying the science, but in denial about denying the science. His most popular video on the topic has almost two million views and claims to debunk the Top 5 “Climate Change” Myths. We’ll get to his others later. Regarding this one first, however…he’s wrong. This video and everything in it has been debunked REPEATEDLY and EPICALLY by MANY people online on the Internet already, so I’m not gonna really do that too much. (voiceover, trying not to laugh) Okay, you’ve noticed it by now. There’s no avoiding it. Uh, when I was hitting the wall with the ax… I got a little bit of debris on my mouth and I didn’t notice it for a couple takes… Just… (trying not to laugh) try not to look at it, and we’ll all get through it together! What I want to draw attention to here is how BLATANTLY wrong it is to anyone who’s willing to do even a smidgen of research. One of the “myths” he tries to debunk is that “the ice sheets are melting”. – [Crowder] #2: You’ve heard this one everywhere! [reads text with sarcastic alarm] – [Hbomb] If the ice sheets WERE melting, it would cause an increase in sea levels as all the water in the ice makes it way into the oceans. It would also increase CO2 levels, because CO2 is stored in ice and then escapes when it melts. It would affect the albedo of the planet—its ability to reflect the heat and light of the sun. It wouldn’t just make things worse on its own; it would exacerbate the process by which things are getting worse. But don’t worry! Steven Crowder’s done a picosecond [“pico”=one-trillionth] of googling! And he’s decided that they’re not melting! In fact, they’re GROWING!! – [Crowder] The Antarctic Ice Sheets are actually growing by billions of tons per year. Does that come to me from “ClimateChangeDenials/”? No! How about NASA!? According to the new analysis of satellite data, “the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001”. – [Hbomb] Aw, shiiiit! He’s using FACTS and LOGIC!! [air raid sirens] SOUND THE ALARMS!
BATTLE STATIONS!! PREPARE FOR IMPACT!!! [alarms stop] Actually, one question… when you said “ice sheetS…” that’s uh, a PLURAL sound… sss…. Could it be that there’s… another… ice sheet, say, in… Greenland…? where… the opposite is true, and it’s… melting… really quickly? …and maybe there’s a net loss of… ice…? I wonder what you’ll say about— He doesn’t bring it up! He doesn’t… it’s just… pretend Greenland doesn’t exist! (voiceover) According to the European Environmental Agency, between the years of 2002 to 2011, Greenland lost an average of 215 BILLION tonnes of ice per year. Then, in 2012, it lost 500 billion. So, if you do some quick maths there, you’ll probably notice that *even if* Antarctica IS growing at the rate Crowder says it is, which, we’ll get back to that later… over 100 BILLION TONS OF ICE PER YEAR is now water in our oceans, which appear to be rising for some INEXPLICABLE reason! (mocking Shapiro) Look, if you live in Venice, just sell your house to the Innsmouth People and move away! IT’S FINE! IT’S ALL F—!!! [inane babble] There’s also the slightly deeper problem that Crowder’s point about the Antarctic ice sheets isn’t actually true EITHER. The article that he posts up links to a study in the Journal of Glaciology entitled “Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses”. Note that it says “Antarctic” ice sheet, because it’s talking about the Antarctic ice sheet on its own and not the one in Greenland WHICH IS MELTING. (voiceover) The study was focused on a specific part of East Antarctica, which most climatologists agree is growing. The question has been how much, and whether this offsets the overall losses in West Antarctica, and whether Antarctica overall is losing or gaining ice. Linked in the description is a really interesting breakdown by Shannon Hall for Scientific American, …no, Paul [Joseph Watson], not the Blogs section… an actual article! exploring why other climatologists disagree with this particular study’s findings. The study calculated the height of glaciers using methods which other scientists have argued is less accurate than other available ones, which presents a danger of having the results being thrown off. And furthermore, the study assumes that the height increases all ice, whereas others would contend it is largely or partly snowfall, which is a whole lot less water. Other studies using different techniques conclude a much smaller increase which means the net change of ice in Antarctica would be a loss and not a gain in ice. In other words, Crowder found, basically, the one study that contends that the mass gain exceeds the losses elsewhere in Antarctica. Not “net” in terms of all the ice sheets, just in Antarctica, and when—oh, that’s it, the one! That’s the one proof! But tons of people disagree about this, and they have pretty good reasons to. I highly recommend you read the article for yourself. OR, I mean, you could even read more than one thing before coming to a conclusion! I could spend an hour on this paper and… maybe, one day, I will! Let me know in the comments! Uh, but, we’re pressed for time, so I will point out that the main author of that paper—it’s not just “NASA”— – [Crowder] how about NASA!! – [Hbomb] More than “NASA” work on things. Individual people with names do. The main author of the paper, Jay Zwally, was interviewed in the Scientific American, and he had this to say: [♫] [music stops] I’m actually gonna read this in voiceover, because I forgot to write it in my notes. (voiceover) Even if Zwally’s paper is one hundred percent accurate, which many of his associates have reasonable reasons to say is not correct, but even if, We’re still net losing far more ice through the other sheets, and the author of the paper believes that climate change is, in fact, happening. He just thinks it hasn’t started happening in Antarctica yet. And that actually does make some sense. The last thing to start melting would be the coldest place in the world, right? I just realized that I don’t know if it’s actually THE coldest place. Pretend I said “one of the most coldest places”. Ohhh, I’m gonna weasel my way out of all of my mistakes! HOHOHO (voice grows sinister) I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU, STEVEN!! (voiceover) Crowder’s website is just full of this shit. The website is largely very short articles about how AOC is a demon, or healthcare is communism, or how women’s bodily autonomy is basically the Boxer Rebellion, usually ending in links to whatever video he did lately that’s tangentially related to the subject. The articles themselves are authored by the site’s editor, Courtney Kirchoff (pronounces it “Kirk-off”). …I hope its’ not “Cur-choff”… I could check… how to pronounce her name… you know… do basic research… but I feel, in the spirit of things, I should just not fucking bother! One particular article that interests me is this one from March this year [2019, future viewers] [reads with bomb(er)astic anger accompanied by wrathful choir] [continues in normal voice] The article is the usual waffle about how everything’s always changing and therefore climate change isn’t a threat or something, But the point it’s dancing around is that a glacier that has been melting in the past is currently growing. Then there’s another couple of paragraphs of needless editorializing about how this proves there’s nothing wrong with the climate, claiming that the melting was caused by human action is wrong because it’s not melting anymore, weird pontificating about big government wanting to control people’s lives, and a GIF from Zoolander! In other words, it’s the most educated piece of conservative journalism I’ve seen all year. Hey! Hbomberguy! Hbomberguy here! TWO things about this interests me. Firstly, (snickering) I just want to point out that there’s NO mention of Greenland in Crowder’s website *or* in his videos…AT ALL… until the EXACT INSTANT they think they can find a mention of it that proves what THEY think is happening. Secondly, even though they think they’ve FINALLY found proof that things are better in Greenland it’s STILL just thinly disguised bullshit! The problem is the *impression* that Crowder and his website want to give. Here’s a graph of the mass of Greenland’s ice sheets from late 2016 to January 2017. See? (mockingly reassuring) It’s just like she said! It’s just a… Natural Ebb and Flow! Sometimes, ice melts, but… it comes back! See?!! (breathlessly) It’s almost gained back all of the ice that… that it melted in the same time!! …it’s fine!! (normal voice) but that’s a *weirdly* specific span of time for someone to talk about, isn’t it? Why would they JUST show you *that*? I mean, time goes back a little bit further than that, doesn’t it? Let’s zoom about a little bit further to, say… 2002. [Mozart’s “Requiem” (Dies Irae sequence)] [music stops] Oh, I forgot! These people are FUCKING LIARS. (voiceover) Ice sheets regaining mass in the colder parts of the year ISN’T unexpected and IS, in fact, *part* of the process. Unfortunately, not *all* the melted ice comes back. The news piece is about ONE glacier doing *better than expected*. But this doesn’t offset the CLEAR, GENERAL TREND. If you were to draw a line *here* and pretend you’d found evidence the sheets were growing back as fast as they’d been melting, you would be doing a lie. Courtney is doing a version of that, while *also* pretending ONE glacier disproves a wider trend that’s been documented for decades. “The glacier is growing ‘about’ as quickly as it was shrinking.” Oh. My. God. The word “about” is doing some FUCKING LEGWORK THERE, ISN’T IT, COURTNEY? Every. Single. Time it’s documented that an ice sheet or a glacier actually gains in size, There’s always some conservative or some blogger willing to point at it and go “LOOK!” “That PROVES there’s *not* a problem! “Look at *this* and ONLY *this*! The Science was Lies!!!” When… the point *isn’t* that… sometimes there’s more ice than there was before… …or *sometimes* SOME of it comes back… The point is that… on the whole… there’s LESS of it. We’re *losing* more than we’re gaining. ONE glacier is not an *entire* ice sheet, it’s *not* unexpected that ice sheets grow, and the clock on “How Big Ice Sheets Used To Be” DIDN’T START SIX MONTHS AGO. If everything’s proceeding as normal, where did all this FUCKING WATER come from, Courtney?! So… here’s the thing… Let’s think about this now. Crowder was wrong for a *variety* of reasons, one of which was SO simple, that ALL you had to do… was point out… that there’s MORE than *one* ice sheet. The one on his website is debunked… …by zooming out… on a graph… Nothing I’ve pointed out here is special or unique. Like I said, this stuff *is* obvious to anyone who’s willing to read a paper for themselves or do almost *any* kind of critical thinking or fact-checking. What I want to draw attention to here is this obviousness itself. Because, if Crowder cares about Science and Facts and Reason and Truth, et cetera, et cetera… blah blah blah… HOW did Crowder *miss* this? I think it would be a mistake to interpret this as pure ignorance. (voiceover) A much better explanation is that Crowder’s business model has nothing to do with “finding the truth” or “rational discourse” or “raising anyone’s consciousness”. His business model is about serving a demographic of conservative people who already feel a certain way about the world, and the product he’s selling… is ideology. Crowder’s work *isn’t* about having a “real debate” or debunking the science. It’s making an audience that thinks climate change is fake FEEL like they have a good reason to believe that. Crowder’s audience is people who WANT their preexisting beliefs validated. They don’t actually *want* the truth. They want to *feel like* what they already think… IS the truth. And *this*, it turns out, is a profitable business model. Not just in terms of the ad revenue from the views you’ll get when you’re telling an audience what they want to be told and how smart they are for wanting to be told it, but also in terms of merchandising. Crowder doesn’t sell Brain Pills. …yet. (snickering) He sells a mug to *drink* them out of! You what’s genius as well? You can’t actually just fucking BUY the mug. Like, on his store. No, his store is just, you know, the fucking… shittest merch ever! (cracking up) We had to discount the Socialism Baby Onesie! Our (laughing) warehouse is FULL of onesies that no one would *ever* buy!! If you want to get into Crowder’s #MugClub, Crowder does a daily show for Blaze TV, basically, Netflix for conservatives, and they charge a subscription of $99 a year. But if you do it through Crowder’s website, they send you this mug. (gleeful) MADE IN CHINA— So… the mug costs $99… you can’t actually buy the mug. (snickering) You CANNOT BUY THE MUG. You have to s-… s-… (cracking up) NINETY NINE DOLLARS!! (normal voice) And this is the point, really. Crowder makes a decent living *not* having to do research. And, instead, serving an audience a piping hot daily serving of confirmation of their beliefs, which they eat up uncritically, because the point isn’t learning, it’s reassurance that they were *already* right. And then they all take a sip in unison from the Most Expensive Utensil They’ll Ever Own which they bought *specifically* to SIGNAL that they support Reason Man and …”taking back the… media”?… Is Crowder just mad that Fox News dropped him from the network? Crowder’s duplicitous falsehoods work *specifically because* the audience WANTS to believe them, not because they’re ignorant, but because they WANT to be. Crowder’s specific grift is in using the right power words: to mask this deliberate ignorance in a technicolor dreamcoat of intellect. So, the incredibly poor work in his videos is because they know these people will eat it up and trust that *they* did the research FOR them, so they don’t have to! The ignorance of the audience occurs because they’re only ever fed this stuff by their favorite conservative news websites and YouTubers and influencers so they never have to stop and *look* at the real facts. They’re… convinced they ARE. They’re just further down a chain designed to only feed them facts that they want. Once you’re wired into the conservative echo chamber, follow conservative thinkers on Facebook and YouTube and Twitter, and read their news websites and buy their mugs and pills and books, you’ll only come into contact with facts and information that HAPPENS to confirm your worldview. and we can see here *just* how easy it is to take a very SPECIFIC thing that *seems* to confirm it, abstract away ANY inconvenient truths, and then present it as proof that you were *already* right and VERY smart and rational for believing it, too! The work is shoddy, and the holes are poorly wallpapered over with scaremongering about the dangers of Big Government Me-No-Like, NOT because they’re genuinely trying to convince outsiders to change *their* minds. It’s to try and protect the *insiders* from HAVING to change their minds. [reads headline with faux outrage] (coyly) Ah, finally, someone partaking in Rational Discourse. *These* people need to taken seriously! /s They have to… invent a world where the problems that conservatism *couldn’t* solve… …simply aren’t really there. And frankly, I SUPPORT this way of thinking! I would… HATE to have to live in the same world as horses! Weird, smuggle little pricks with their…. eyes and… teeth…! but I’ve done some research, and it turns out that HORSES DON’T EXIST!! YAAAY!!!!!!!! [♫ happy music ♫] [sings] [music scratches] (voiceover, somewhat despondent) Man, the scale of the problem is *so big*, isn’t it? I can see why the climatologists I know try not to bring up the topic too much in conversation. It’s just depressing, ESPECIALLY if you agree with them, isn’t it? Thinking about the scope of the problem… A lot of sweeping changes will have to be made VERY QUICKLY on a large scale, or we’ll be stuck in an uphill battle against the climate in the future. And given that we can’t really personally bring about many of those changes on our own, what’s really left to do on Planet Earth other than… wait to see what happens and run out the clock, eating Nutella straight out of the jar? [opens lid] [lid falls and rolls on the floor] [ ♫ ] [breaks seal with a…spatula handle] [disgusting human eating sounds] Well, you *could* to that, and maybe, sometimes, you *should*. But Nutella… is a Sometimes Food. [puts jar down] And there are some things you CAN do about climate change, if you’d like to try. [ ♫ ] [disgusting licking sounds] [music stops, more revolting licking and smacking] I’m cleaning it. What?! I don’t want to get it on my hands later if I pick it up again! (voiceover) Linked in the description is a great video by Simon Clark, a science Youtuber getting a PhD in climate physics, talking about what we ought to be looking into to deal with climate change. His suggestions take place on the level of what sources we use for power and changes in legislation of businesses whose actions directly affect the climate. I think this is important to recognize, because I find a lot of people tend to embrace more *personal* solutions, like driving a more efficient car or using public transport or going vegan and so on, and it has to be acknowledged that these personal choices AREN’T the primary driver of climate problems in the first place. The WIDER POLICIES are. It’s very easy to give into the idea that the solution lies in you reducing your personal emissions to create a sense of control and “doing your part” for this big and scary thing, but that effort maybe ought to be spent fighting to get the big things done: getting people thinking and providing support for meaningful changes. Basically, just… don’t make it personal. Climate change *isn’t* your fault. It’s the Koch brothers’ fault. [ ♫ ] Hey, Mortimer? What happened to my— MORTIMER! NNNOOOOOO!!!!!1 (voiceover) You know who else has lots of information about the environment? This video’s sponsor: CuriosityStream. They’ve recently expanded their library, and there’s more than 2400 titles there now, including “Climate: A Few Degrees Less”, which breaks down the carbon cost of many key industries and what can be done to reduce them, and outlines the efforts of the Deep De-Carbonization Pathways Project, a global consortium whose goal is to prevent future [a] climate crisis. Access to CuriosityStream starts at $2.99 a month, which is less than a jar of Nutella will cost you and significantly better for your health… but if you sign up at and use “hbomberguy” as the promo code, the first 31 days are free! So you could watch documentaries AND have a jar of Nutella!! Although… you shouldn’t eat Nutella out of the jar… that was act… that’s actually really bad for you. Don’t… Then again, I can’t criticize people’s life choices. There’s literally TWO empty egg shells from some soft-boiled eggs I had, like, two days ago, just sitting on my desk directly under my mic. Lik, seriously, listen: [breaks eggshell] I just… broke an eggshell in my hand that’s just there on my desk. So…….. [stutters, embarrassed] Look, there’s some good documentaries—I need to go wash my dishes, I’m sorry… Speaking of being a morally compromised corporate shill, it’s time to talk about Patrick Moore! [horrifying licking noises] (voiceover) Patrick Moore is a Canadian activist and environmentalist. Moore was the leader of Greenpeace Canada for about nine years. Moore is *also* in the Climate Denial Game, (faux shock) but HE’S PLAYING IT ON NIGHTMARE MODE!! [raspberry-fart] (amused incredulity) His SPECIFIC STANCE is that carbon dioxide levels *are* affected by humans, but an increase in CO2 is ACTUALLY GREAT!! CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE, AFTER ALL!! – [Moore] CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth. So we’ve been been skipping along on top of this low point for CO2 for a long time now, and it’s about time somebody *did something* about it! – [Hbomb] (mocking Moore) “And so what if sea levels rise?!! “Don’t you know that humans are mostly water?!! “We need it to live! It’s good for us! (cackling) “DRINK UP, FUCKER!!!” [moar cackling] – [Moore] It’s like [George] Carlin said: “The reason people came into existence is because the Earth wants plastic!” – [Hbomb] (voiceover, amused) Oh my God, he’s doing George Carlin, but NOT for a joke! – [Moore] And maybe the reason people came into existence is because the atmosphere wants a little more carbon dioxide for the plants. [applause] Who knows! – [Hbomb] (voiceover) If ONLY there were people whose job it was to find out— Oh, you think those people are paid shills who are just PRETENDING it might be caused by humans for money! – [Moore] This is NASA at its worst. They do good things too, but they also collect over a billion dollars in climate change research money from the Federal Government in the United States, and they do this “CO2 Controls Earth’s Temperature” to keep getting that funding. – [Hbomb] (voiceover) Here he is, complaining about a comedy sketch that Bill Nye did lately on the basis that that he’s being SO MEAAAN about CO2! (snickering) “He’s demonizing it and hurting its feewings!” [reads tweets, snickering] [reads, cracking up] (deadpan) Um, I hate to break it to you, Mr. Moore, but Bill Nye was employing an… experimental technique some people might not have heard of before, called, uh, a I’m not sure if… people have noticed… but this isn’t actually LITERALLY happening to the planet… The Earth isn’t *actually* on fire. Um, what’s actually happening is CO2 is contributing to trapping more heat in the atmosphere, causing a warming effect, which is tough to represent visually. When a fire extinguisher is used, the CO2 doesn’t actually react with the fire *directly* to… stop it from being fire, it actually displaces the *oxygen* that keeps the fire going, which helps extinguish it, with the secondary effect that the CO2 in the pressurized container is colder than room temperature and therefore, the… (losing composure) CO2 is not a magic, TURN-FIRE-OFF gas! (snickering) Having more in the atmosphere doesn’t mean fires will go out easier! …goddamn it! [raspberry-fart] – [stock happy children] YAAAAAY!! tape scratches] – [Reasonable Bear] You’re wrong, Hbomber-LIE. You can’t have “too much” of something if it’s GOOD for you. Now, watch as I consume enough Brain Force to surpass even Ben Shapiro’s power! – [Hbomb] (faux concern) No, Reasonable-ist Bear!! Don’t!! Your body can’t take that much Alertness and Free Thinking!! – [Reasonable Bear] (voice distorted) At the end of the clip, Bill tries to blow the fire out, but did you know that breath ALSO contains carbon dioxide?! CHECKMATE, GLOBEHEADS!! I just proved th— [groans in agony, explodes] – [Hbomb] Oh, no! (trying not to laugh) He died from having too much IQ!! [puts hand on breast]
Rest In Peace. (deadpan) If you didn’t like that character, he’s dead. He’s gone now. (voiceover) Since quitting Greenpace over… “””””differences in policy””””” …and Greenpeace have done everything they can do distance themselves from him since he left… Moore has become a consultant for businesses that get a bad rap from environmental organizations. As a former higher-up at Greenpeace, Moore’s a great catch for these industries. It’s a compelling narrative: here’s someone who really did care about the planet, but he’s come out against the people who say we’re being unethical and saying that, actually, we’re good! So… we MUST be!! Steven Crowder’s second and third most popular videos about the climate are interviews with Moore. He’s also gone on PragerU as well to list off his regular talking points, but… …in an even more stilted manner. I think something’s wrong with PragerU’s teleprompter. This keeps happening when people go on. He’s just a REAL GET, you know? He’s THE GUY!! He’s the guy from Greenpeace, and he says global warming’s not real!! We got ‘im!! We just have to keep quoting him!! It’s like we’re right!! We don’t have to check or anything!! They don’t drag this guy onto everything because he’s right… (snickering) because he’s not! They drag him on because they can say “Greenpeace Founder Debunks Climate!!” in their video titles, and everyone who WANTS to believe this can go: “Oh, well, that sounds about right!” And, you know, not actually CHECK what he’s saying or anything! Which…is ALL WRONG. Basically everything he says about the climate *can* be debunked if you question it. (snickering) But no one watching THIS is going to, are they? They think these people have already done it *for* them. Moore positions himself as “the Sensible Environmentalist”! You know, not like those SENSELESS ones that accept the science and, for some reason, think we should do something about it… I suppose it *is* “sensible”, in one sense of the word, to take money from big companies to try to rehabilitate their image. I’m sure the Koch brothers pay *very* well. I hate to sound like I’m beating a dead h—(stammers) uh, DOG, here… [pathetic sobbing] (coyly) but I wasn’t joking when I said that. This talk here is at the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian think-tank dedicated mostly to opposing the scientific outlook on climate change. It receives a very large portion of its funding from the Koch Foundation, an organization founded and run by the Koch Brothers, two INCREDIBLY wealthy, ultra-billionaire oil barons who have spent *literally decades* spreading this kind of misinformation. It’s almost as if this whole thing is just a bunch of rich people trying to hold onto their money by… paying to spread lies! By the way, they’re one of the main donors to PragerU and the Rubin Report. What a surprise! It’s actually pretty clear why Moore’s imagination IMMEDIATELY goes to *being paid* to support a scientific conclusion. After all… that is what *he’s* doing…. Patrick Moore’s denialism *is* wrong, and OBVIOUSLY wrong, because, of course it is, and his… corporate cheerleading is just… immoral. But he goes *one step further* sometimes in a way that I find… special. You see, with denialism and with general anti-science fakery, there’s a line that you can’t cross. There’s a reason why a lot of these people say things like: “Oh! Well, you know, I’m not an expert, BUT…” – [Shapiro] So, here’s my take on the climate change issue. Um, on the climate change issue, I’m not gonna pretend I’m an expert at reading the studies. – [Hbomb] (voiceover, coy deadpan) Don’t worry, Ben, you didn’t have to volunteer that information. It was already obvious. This tacit admission of potential ignorance is an important part of the trickery, because if you *claimed* to ACTUALLY know what you were talking about, it would become crystal clear you were deliberately lying when it turned out you were so OBVIOUSLY WRONG. But, if you say you’re an amateur, there’s deniability. If Shapiro says something wrong, well, like he said, he hadn’t looked that hard into it! and he’s not an expert, so, for all you know, he WASN’T LYING!! – [Crowder] My purpose here is not at all to pretend to *be* a scientist, but to get you, the viewer, to think about REAL science! – [Hbomb] (voiceover, imitating) I’m not *pretending* to be a scientist! I just want you to have a Think about the (glaring) THE ONE AND ONLY ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU. With bullshit, even with *ridiculous* bullshit, even with OBVIOUS lies, there *is* a line. I’m establishing this because, in 2014, (snickering) Patrick Moore tripped on his own dick and fell ALL THE WAY THROUGH the line and onto a live rail and electrocuted himself! Metaphorically, of course. I’m sure a lot of you know what I’m referring to here: it’s the thing Patrick Moore is known for more than anything now. I’m referring, of course, to the Weedkiller Incident. (voiceover) Okay, so, some background here: There’s a product called “Roundup”, which was originally produced by Monsanto, but has later been acquired by Bayer. It’s based on a chemical called “glyphosate”, a chemical Monsanto discovered and patented, and it’s the most used herbicide in the United States, and on the planet, for that matter. However, there is *some* evidence that Roundup causes cancer if you come into heavy, repeated contact with it. There isn’t evidence, to my knowledge, that crops *treated with it* become dangerous to EAT, or that limited domestic use is dangerous in this regard, but farmers who use it in large amounts and other agricultural workers, like groundskeepers, have an increased likelihood to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of blood cancer. Roundup’s current owners, Bayer, have recently been ordered to pay BILLIONS of dollars in damages after it was found Roundup had failed to inform customers of the potential risks of using their product. Over *300* more Federal lawsuits have been filed, and Costco recently discontinued selling Roundup. It was also banned in France in January [2019, future Internet Denizens]. While all of these allegations were happening, French journalist Paul Moreira asked Moore about the safety and potential risks of glyphosate, and Moore, in an attempt to defend the herbicide, said this: – [Moore] I do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you! – [Hbomb] (voiceover) Now… obviously, you shouldn’t drink… WEEDKILLER… This was either a mistake or a lie, but Moreira had a sense of humor and asked him if he would like to drink some. – [Moreira] You want to drink some? We have some here.
– [Moore] I’d be happy to, actually. – [Hbomb] (voiceover) But then! [snaps fingers] CLICK! You can see it in his eyes! You can see him realize he’s taken the lie to support the big corporation a *bit too far*, and he just said he’d be happy to DRINK WEEDKILLER. What follows is, I feel, one of the most informative clips about the ideology that underpins denialism in history. – [Moore] I’d be happy to, actually. Not—not really, but— – [Moreira] Not really?
– [Moore] I know it wouldn’t hurt me. – [Moreira] If… if you say so. I have some glyphosate—
– [Moore] No no, I’m not stupid. – [Moreira] Ah, okay, so, you… so, it’s dangerous, right?
– [Moore] No, but I know—, no, people try to commit suicide with it and fail, fairly regularly. – [Moreira] Tell the truth: it’s dangerous to—
– [Moore] It’s not dangerous to humans. No, it’s not. – [Moreira] So, are you ready to drink one glass of glyphosate?
– [Moore] No, I’m not an idiot. – [Hbomb] (voiceover) This is a funny clip, and it was shared widely when it happened, although Moore is often credited as a Monsanto lobbyist, which isn’t true. A Monsanto spokesperson denies him ever having been a *paid* lobbyist, but his cheerleading for a big company and his being mistaken for a lobbyist is unsurprising, when, in the almost THIRTY years since he left Greenpeace, he makes his living *lobbying* for companies like Monsanto and leveraging his former Greenpeace status. I mean, he named his company “GREENspirit,” for Sobek’s sake!! But this clip makes it clearer than anywhere else that, beneath the veneer of “just being *skeptical* of the scientists and their Agendas”, lies people whose job is NOT AT ALL related to finding or sharing the truth. Moore realized he’d fucked up and immediately fled the interview. THINK about the disconnect as he flicked between his defense of a company’s product, claiming it was safe to drink and “he’d be happy to”, and his rational brain, the brain that ACTUALLY knows the truth, his understanding that drinking it *might* actually be REALLY BAD, and he shouldn’t take that risk. But he accidentally took that extra step, said he would be happy to, and now has to argue that he would “love” to drink some, but he won’t, because he’s “not stupid”! Climate Denialism isn’t JUST a bunch of people who are wrong. It’s a bunch of people being *paid* to be wrong ON PURPOSE to deliberately spread doubt of the truth, mislead the people who *are* HONESTLY trying to be skeptical, and confirm the beliefs of the ignorant who want to PRETEND they’re skeptical, and ultimately this contributes to perpetuating the profits of a few rich individuals who *do not want* to be made to reduce their profits or risk being held accountable for the effect their profiteering is having on the WORLD WE LIVE ON, at the EXPENSE *OF THAT WORLD*. To PRETEND that there is a real, legitimate, non-astroturfed “debate” about whether climate change is caused by humans and represents a potential threat, is to give into propaganda from people who *are lying*, and KNOW THEY’RE LYING, and are SO USED to lying that they will tell you it’s safe to drink a *weedkiller* that MIGHT BE GIVING THE FARMERS WHO WORK WITH IT *CANCER*. They will tell you that *being alarmed* about a CREDIBLE THREAT TO *HUMANITY’S FUTURE* MAKES YOU AN “ALARMIST!!” They will *lie* TO YOUR FUCKING FACE while telling you THEY’RE the True Warriors of Science and Logic! Something can STILL be done about the climate, it simply requires dispelling these corporate lies, seeing past the people selling you the chance to PRETEND you know better than scientists, agitating for REAL political change, and advocating for a culture that ACTUALLY accepts science, ACTUALLY employs reason and skepticism, and doesn’t just pretend they’re magic words that can be used to make you sound clever. Almost everyone thinks Science and Facts and Logic and Truth are great! We all agree that those words are lovely and mean good things. The problem is: a lot of people set out to prove those things are on their “side”, instead of following those things *where they lead*. It’s VERY easy to be misled by rhetoric into thinking that one idea is more “reasonable” than another, and it’s even EASIER to find someone who’s willing to tell you that what you think RIGHT NOW *is* already the reasonable thing. That doesn’t make you *actually* right, though. I’m *not* a very smart person, and this isn’t a self-deprecating joke I’m doing here. Everyone who thinks Dark Souls 2 is bad can attest to this already! I remember once I went to mail a letter and accidentally put the sunglasses in my other hand into the mailbox, and I just tried to quietly erase the memory of… watching the sunglasses fade out of view… and then drop from my hands as, at the very last moment, my brain went: “…hang on…” I’m saying this because, while humans *can* be VERY smart about *some things* in specific SOMETIMES, humans are, in general, VERY BAD about a *lot* of things. It’s *very* easy to look at a horizon and say: “well, it LOOKS flat to me”, or to discount the work of scientists because, well, it just LOOKS a different way to you! and it’s *very* to dismiss anyone who might be an authority on an issue as, well, an “argument from authority”! “After all, a PhD *is* just a piece of paper. “It doesn’t necessarily mean what that persons says is right!” And you would be RIGHT to assume that, but, I also think it’s wrong to use that as a deliberate strategy to *avoid* dealing with the fact that sometimes, people DO know better than you about complex issues. If you find it easy to discount hundreds of people’s LIFE’S WORK because you “reckon” you “know better” based on… ONE paper you’ve read… then you might as well have put your *brain* in the mailbox. So, it turns out there’s an ADVANTAGE to being as rubbish as me! It means you have to put effort into learning things and… and develop a respect and appreciation for the people who put SO MUCH time into learning something and an understanding that… maybe they DO know more than you. When I find myself disagreeing with the conclusions of a scientist, I ask myself what *they* might know that I don’t, and go look for that and see if that changes my mind. And when I find a scientist that I *happen* to find agreeable, I immediately think “well, if they think like I do, then, well, something’s up. Let’s see what the OTHERS have to say and why *they* might think they’re wrong and what they’re reasons are”. The true test of skepticism ISN’T in trying to find ways to “debunk your opponents” or change anyone else’s mind. It’s in finding ways to understand when YOU are wrong and learn to change *your* mind. Sometimes, that’s easier than others. For example, in this instance—a lot of people who currently deny climate change— can freely admit that they were lied to. They were *misled* by people who ONLY showed them facts that appear to confirm their beliefs. They… hadn’t *really* thought that hard about it. In fact, they’re thinking had basically been done FOR them. They’d *given over* the thinking to someone else, who, it turned out, they couldn’t trust, and now they can think for themselves and maybe come to different conclusions. I changed A LOT the day I realized that there are people out there who make a living… making you FEEL GOOD for believing what *they tell you*. And, frankly… it gives me hope… that that happened to me. Because… I KNOW I’m a foolish person, and if *I* can learn and grow and change, then there’s hope for all of us. And I believe that EVEN YOU, yes, *you*, can one day come to accept the truth… that Horses. Don’t. Exist. That’s what this video was about. Goodbye.

Reader Comments

  1. The rich want the seashore and lakeshores, e.g. Obama.
    Check with house insurance companies. Will they sell insurance on seashore properties?

  2. please explain were the extra volume comes from 

    So what happens when the ice cube melts? The ice shrinks (decreases volume) and becomes more dense. The ice density will increase from .92g/cm^3 to that of liquid water (1g/cm^3). Note that the weight will not (and cannot) change. The mass just becomes more dense and smaller – similar to putting blocks back into their original positions in our Jenga tower. We know the ice cube weighed 10 grams initially, and we know it's density (1g/cm^3), so let's apply the formula to determine how much volume the melted ice cube takes. The answer is 10 cubic centimeters (10g / 1g/cm^3 = 10cm^3), which is exactly the same volume as the water that was initially displaced by the ice cube.

  3. What really blows my mind is, that as a 16 year old in India (or I'd assume any other country that has any kind of education system) I can easily tell that the vast majority of what these idiots say is false. Because I learnt about these basic topics like the causes of global warming, the relationship of plants with CO2 etc in school. In fucking middle school, no less. It blows my mind that millions of educated adults can watch this drivel and think damn, this seems reasonable. Do tell me if I'm missing something because I'm sure I am, this can't add up.

  4. Hahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha I am thinking delusional you proven nothing blar blar blar all you do is blar blar blar. Hahahahahaha as for European union payed for Science.

  5. I do want to point something out: the lawsuit and redaction of use of RoundUp/glyphosate is generally because the creators of RoundUp haven't informed people properly of the possible side-effects of using glyphosate. Heavy use has been sorta' believably been linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but consumer use (i.e spraying your yard) has yet to be linked. This points to the idea that glyphosate is one of many things that are good in moderation. I commend the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Italy for regulating the use, as it's in our fucking soil for the love of fuck, but glyphosate itself isn't that toxic. The dude wasn't lying when he said "people have tried to commit suicide and fail with it regularly" — people do try to commit suicide by drinking RoundUp/glyphosate, but it has a ridiculously high LD50 since it isn't really metabolized by humans. It only gets toxic when you force it into the bloodstream by, say, breathing vast quantities of it in regularly.

    Something else i need to point out is how the use of glyphosate doesn't coincide with an uptick in lymphoma cases; glyphosate was used in the 1970s and now, all of a sudden, people are having a problem with it because they're too stupid to consider the possibility of regulating use of pesticides, herbicides, etc. of all kinds because, news flash, every single pesticide/herbicide out there has been linked to some form of health defect, and glyphosate was chosen and popularized because of just how few of those there were.

    …or people can fear-monger about how something is possibly toxic when the real issue, the one involving them, flies under the radar like it's the latest & greatest James Bond airliner.

    Anyway, here are three general-use citations:

    * I only wrote this because I feel that you, Hbomberguy, are capable of objective overview. It's just… being objective about something is kind of difficult when you let a lawsuit inform your opinion without researching the lawsuit itself or reading the small print, which makes it known that the problem isn't the glyphosate itself but the fact it's being used so widely, readily and had a side-effect that the creator/s refused/forgot to warn the general public about.

  6. Eggs are the product of animal cruelty(chick culling, organ damage, nutrient depletion, cramped sheds, spent hen slaughter etc.) and Nutella is made from dairy(equally cruel: male calf slaughter, nutrient depletion, mastitis, lameness, nutrient depletion, spent cow slaughter etc) and palm oil from deforested regions destroying the Earth’s carbon sequestration and oxygen production.
    Those livestock also massively contribute to human caused climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and their feed crops cause soil erosion and habitat loss.
    Wise up.

  7. Eco-fascism is evil. Green-washed brains are dangerous. If Ben Shapiro says something stupid, that doesn't change those facts.

  8. People who tell Greta to kill herself and dismissing her for being autistic and calling her "Hitler Youth" shouldn't be trusted.

  9. Love the video, But I just wanted to point out that the ice sheets that you mentioned wont raise the sea level as the melt. The mass of those sheets is already displacing water so changing the state of the matter wont change the sea level. It's the mountain glaciers and snowbanks that will raise the sea level because they arent already in the water

  10. I recently met someone who kept flip flopping from full climate change denial to eco-fascist rhetoric whose main arguments were "in older than you so I know more about the world" and "you're being manipulated by THEM for a political motive"

  11. *Has no where to hang axe.
    *Sees thin wall within swinging distance.
    *Axe+Wall=(hole in wall)
    *Hang axe in wall.
    Thank you hbomberguy, more 'manly' in that one action than most men on earth.

  12. Personally invested in nuclear energy, because I'd prefer to die on a radioactive cancer ridden hell hole than a literal hell hole caused by the drastic raising in temperature.

    On another note, NEVER USE A CARBON DIOXIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHER IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE, YOU WILL SUFFOCATE!!!!! Also, that was a water based extinguisher, CO2 ones have a BLACK panel/ring to denote what's within.

  13. So, you may wanna go dig into the whole court case IARC report thing,

  14. What would happen if all the ice melts, the oceans rise another foot in 100 years and people are able to farm Greenland and Canada and the Steppes of Russia. Plants would grow well into the cold zones, eating up CO2. Coral reefs would slow in tropical regions and grow in colder ones. Storm seasons would stay about the same, maybe even more calm as the difference in temperatures between colliding fronts would be lessened. The population of Earth could grow to 11 billion and we would start populating other planets. Change is inevitable. Another ice-age may come, but by then, we may have the technology to buffer the effects. Do you think people will go through documents about how we kept saying the world would end in a few years (just about every decade since 0 AD) for comic relief?

  15. This video is boring as fuck! Where is the science? You claim to bring it but really dont you just claim most climatologists? And other scientists! Who???? I have seen way more science from the other side. Climate denial is much more believable because they bring the science you bring nothing but keep saying much more other people!

  16. 23:03 – The Earth has warmed by approximately 1 C on average since 18th century.
    That is the most important thing to know about this problem.

  17. slight update: that crowder video is now privated. i had to go on his website to find it and even there, it just wouldn't play. small victories i guess?

  18. What I REALLY want to know is – how does this cat actually LIVE? Does he ride a bike to work instead of driving his F150? Does he walk anywhere? Does he leave his lights in his house on all the time? Use LED bulbs everywhere instead of flourescents, even? How does he LIVE? Because if the way he LIVES doesn't back up his preaching, then I'm not drinking his KoolAid.

  19. There are government grants only given for producing work supporting anthropogenic climate change, and low and behold 97% of these guys have kids, mortgages and need to live. You need to dig deeper. Look at the work of those that aren't on the government payroll or big energy firms. Look to those that have reached retirement and are no longer bound by finances. You will find real science done there with real skepticism.

  20. Banks would not take mortgage's on properties that would be under water in 10 years. Oh by the way Al Gore told us in 2004 that Florida would be under water by 2016 !!!!! Seems that CO2 has not been the pollutant claimed by the IPCC . Also the IPCC claims have not even come close !!!!

  21. People cause pollution this is a fact, people need things, so if you're serious about saving the planet you best make arguements for population control, if you're serious that is, electric cars won't cut it i'm afraid.

  22. The really shitty thing is that the reason to deny is money. For the average joe, it's a screaming of being right, no matter the consequence, or conspiracy special snowflake theories. But companies can not benefit from climate change actions. Because they are the biggest part of the problem and we could fairly easily make some really big headway in reversing and limiting the damaging effects, but it always costs money, money that no one wants to foot the bill.

    People who have the resource (money) to do it and make an impact, don't. Because they earned that resource, it's theirs. Why should they have to do it? Socialism screech. Or more commonly, they simply don't understand what money actually is. We characterize it in such a way that it's lost it's actual power as an access mechanism. A card that gets you into anything and everything because we've deemed it a viable transaction for real goods and services.

    Worse still is that because of the way our world works, we feel we don't make an impact, even those who could actually do a lot feel like they can't because we're attuned to the idea of one person not being able to do much.

    But it's like if the whole world were in a dry spell and group of people who effectively own 40% of the fresh water available lifted up their hands and said what can we do about it?
    Sure, money doesn't solve everything, but man if it doesn't buy you the ability to be able to solve a lot of typical problems. And it's because money is a resource that gives you access to all other resources, the actual important part of the equation. The ability to fund new technologies, research, experiments to see what works and what doesn't.

    But, a few people can't change anything we all think. Owning a significant portion of access to resources isn't a burden they asked for. People can't handle that pressure and people feel like they are just one individual. It's frustrating. I'm not even blaming, everyone would be the same in that situation. There is a dissonant apathy and hopelessness we are taught inadvertently because of the society we've created. We're a collective whether we want to be or not, but we feel individual and powerless.

    Humans have a very hard time understanding how to mobilize and work as a unit to achieve something and on top of that, we have people who don't agree that anything can be a fact, because that could mean that they are wrong.

    It's an artform in itself to help people be able to make change by showing them things that are not only possible to make change, but path of least resistance, something that is very easy, already fits in their life style and outweighs the "it's not my favorite thing" instinct in exchange for feeling good about themselves.

  23. I think I understand climate change now

    You see, Atlantis is facing a housing shortage, and Aquaman is flooding the coastal regions in order to get people to sell their houses on the cheap while they flee certain death.

  24. I might agree with conservatices on some things i definitely disagree about their opinion on climate change. Its basic chemistry at this point.

  25. Steven "the loud dumbass" is dumb… in other news the sky is blue and Sweden is rainy… (he should change the name of his show to "dumber with crowder" shouldn´t he?)

  26. also the first sign of a smart person (like an acctual smart person) it seems to me is a person who freely admits they´re dumb as hell.

  27. just wanted to pop by and ruin your childhood with the knowledge that STEPHEN CROWDER WAS THE VOICE OF THE BRAIN ON ARTHUR. I'M SO SORRY.

  28. I agree that climate is happening and is bad but the solution I think would to try using the free market in America. We have already decreased are emissions by 10 percent since 2000 unlike places like China who have increased by over 200 percent. What I think would help would be to take these ideas to places like China or India

  29. It's hard talking to deniers as most of them are quite ignorant and intellectually obtuse to comprehending scientific data.

  30. @ 5:03 Arrgh… Sorry to nitpick, but… "begs the question"… noooo questions are raised not begged. "Begging the question" is something else. It's an informal logical fallacy where you assume that your premises conclude that your conclusion is true. /nerdmodeoff.

  31. I think the term "climate skeptic" has to be earned. Science, by its very nature, is skeptical. There are a small number of actual scientist who get their studies published in peer reviewed journals ike Nir Shaviv, Peter Laut and some others who are legitimate skeptics. They make bad arguments on the topic, sure, but they have at least had scientific ideas. Calling yourself a skeptic who jumps onto any blog, YouTube channel or pundit who says "climate change is a hoax" is not being skeptical, its just being a contrarian.

  32. Where is your science? I want to a debate so I can measure the sciences between the two sides but you bring nothing. All I see on the other side is science. This is sad!

  33. 23:38 that’s kind of the thing that a lot of people in the zero waste movement have to face. It’s better if everyone reduced their waste and whatnot, but individuals can’t do anything. It’s those in power that have to make the change and we have to make sure they do that. (Also side note: zero waste is an industrial term afaik and is meant to convey the idea of large companies and manufacturers reducing their waste because compared to consumers they’re the ones doing all the wasting)

  34. I don't know if you've seen this already but Smash Mouth's All Star *is*, partly, about climate change:

  35. Disgusting how Earth is clinging to the life it has and people are making money off of that.

  36. So every single scientific model regarding climate change has been proven false.

    In the sixties they said the Earth was cooling and that we were entering into an ice age.

    They now say it's warming.

    They said that the polar ice caps would melt. They haven't. They're not even melt*ing*

    They said the Great Lakes in the US would dissapear due to climate change. They're not; in fact they're growing as bodies of water.

    The cult of climate change is ultimately an orthodoxy. You have your infallible men in white robes called scientists ordaining truth from above from a text only they understand just as Catholic priests in their white robes ordained truth from above from a text only they understood.

    Yes, H Bomber. If you lived in the middle ages you would've been a quaking peasent. You're just a sheep.

  37. I've been seeing people post this anti-vaxx article recently. Might be a good thing to break down.

  38. I can't drive it enough, going vegan is one of the best choices you can make for your health (this comes from someone with a nutritionist background) but cut your carbon footprint. Research if you don't believe me.

  39. Stick to games, you actually have some funny material, but throwing your wildly left view into your channel is stupid. Your a comedy gaming channel accusing someone else of not being a scientist while yourself spewing words about an issue that you also know nothing about. YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST EITHER HAROLD.

  40. Here's something nobody can deny. The climate hustlers have a 100% record of predictive failure going back more than forty years.

  41. Patrick Moore is obviously wrong for many reasons but here's a fun one I found out about recently in my biology class: a high percentage of carbon dioxide in the air isn't good for plants either!

    Forgetting, for a minute, all of the other issues in climate change that will affect photosynthesis, many scientists believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels above a certain point will mean that the plant no longer has the right ratio of carbon dioxide to water which would lead to an accumulation of carbon dioxide as it can't be used in photosynthesis.

    You can't just magic your way out of this – no matter which way you slice it, climate change is happening and it is bad for the environment so we'd better get off our asses to actually prevent the worst of it from happening.

  42. 12:17 I literally only just found out about Plok and its amazing soundtrack less than a month ago and I'm so happy to hear this snippet.

  43. Scientists: (prove climate change is happening but that most of it is on part of China and India)
    Environmentalists: (not a peep about this, just half-baked ideas about more taxes as if that'll do anything)

  44. chopping down a tree,use the blade of the axe (the sharp bit)
    hitting a shit wall,use the blunt head of the axe (just some advice from a demolition worker) also bear it in mind if you want to murder someone
    dont work harder,work smarter

  45. Earth has been much warmer in the past than now, and there was no human activity back then to cause the warming. You might want to look into 'solar forcing' etc. to learn some actual real climate science.

  46. smash mouth comment had me like BOI i said that about once and my gf at the time thought i was nuts. i am, but like, I'M STILL DOUBLING DOWN ON IT, IT'S A GOOD ONE

  47. This guy is right, and i agree with him

    but hes still the nerd who said fallout 3 sux so i hope he steps on a frag mine and has his anus blasted out his eyeballs

Leave a Reply

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