Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. I love how he describes group 2 as "there are many things that has an impact on the climate" as if group 1 doesn't realize the same. LOL. It is pathetic how easy it is to show the dishonesty in this video.
    10
  2.  @ChipperWilliams  as if PragerU would be that one place where you get the 100% truth. Wake up Mr. Sheeple.
    5
  3.  @korppi164  the graph at 0:21 for instance. Why do you think he chose that one and not the one from the 50s? Because the one from 1997 best fit his narrative, where the whole timeline best fits reality, something he wants to avoid.
    4
  4.  @mobiusone6994  actually science is a lot about consensus. Consensus is based on experiments being done over and over again, building up a consensus that something is a thing. If things can be replicated, consensus is formed. If things can't be replicated, consensus is not formed. The ability to be replicated is the one thing science is about.
    4
  5.  @ChipperWilliams  it appears like that, but that is because you are bias. Somehow you don't seem to be that averse to calling people names, so maybe you should not be too hung up on that? All I said was that PragerU doesn't speak 100% truth. No one does. I watch PragerU every now and then because counter culture is important, but I don't like it when counter culture is hijacked by BS like this.
    4
  6.  @TheStockCarStig  as the video offers no evidence it is not needed. What he does is that he speaks out about disagreeing with the video without being biased against PragerU. It is not supposed to be a conversation ender, but a conversation starter.
    3
  7.  @jackpics  are you sure that you don't conflate "may happen" with "will happen"?
    2
  8.  @Blaze936  it shows that he is bias and we cannot take him by his words. He could be speaking the truth, but for his words to have any value everything he said has to be researched. At that point, his words have still no value since you have done the research yourself. All and all, his words have no value.
    2
  9.  @rubiks6  living things adapt to Earth, not the other way around. The problem becomes when Earth changes quickly, by then the adaptation is a horrendous process. So much death.
    2
  10.  @ricktd6891  "... because they falsify the hypothesis" They don't. "... sheep pretend to know more about climate science than an actual scientist." Talking about yourself? "Why don't you point out "the dishonesty" in this video ? " I did. "... your opinion is meaningless to science." Yours as well.
    2
  11.  @borismcgillicutty3042  why can't we do both?
    2
  12.  @garetclaborn  will you move the cities along the coastlines? :)
    2
  13.  @garetclaborn  and how much have Manhattan moved last 30 years?
    2
  14.  @cagwscam6398  he omits the truth.
    1
  15. you should not listen to Bill Nye, you should listen to Scientists. Not one scientist, since ppl can be bought. You should listen to all Scientists. It is a lot more expensive to buy all of them, and you won't be able to buy them all. Most of them have integrity. This dude, has no integrity.
    1
  16. AGW will effect the poor people of the world, so they are screwed either way. Only way to help them is to convince the rich world to give them green energy.
    1
  17.  @stevedekker8754  it is sad that we now have to face the consequences :(.
    1
  18. what people deny is an ever receding position. Just look at the practice and position of the deniers in the past and you see how dishonest they are.
    1
  19. how will you adapt the coastal cities? force fields that never fail? :P
    1
  20. no, because it is predictable. You just wait on next major solar maximum, they might kill you for speaking up :D.
    1
  21. The graph at 0:21 is deceptive. The supposed trend line is not actually a trend line, and they chose to look from 1997 specifically since there was pretty much constant warming up to 1997. This is how easy it is to debunk "climate skeptics" a.k.a. climate deniers.
    1
  22.  @cavaleer  the ocean absorbs as much CO2 as it creates.
    1
  23.  @blainefriess9243  there are more things that determine local temperature than global levels of CO2. That is why.
    1
  24.  @abloogywoogywoo  ultimately though we don't understand anything. We have to make decisions on our best understandings.
    1
  25.  @MikeOzmun  all I can say is that I disagree, since you weren't very specific.
    1
  26.  @ChipperWilliams  I don't watch CNN and Al Gore is not a scientist. Why do you think I watch PragerU videos from time to time?
    1
  27.  @ChipperWilliams  that is not being "not truthful", the comment is there for you to read. What I did was a reference to what I said. The core of what I said is just that. Maybe you don't know the English expression "All I said"? Anyway, good try! I did not expect any different reaction, but it is a bit funny to see someone punch back twice as hard at the same time as they preach not punching in the first place. You are done with my idea that PragerU is not telling the truth 100% of the time? You really think they are? Honestly?
    1
  28.  @ChipperWilliams  you claim "You have shown yourselves to be a insulting troll and a name caller. Just calling it like I see it." yet you didn't cite anything? You know the definition of "refer to" right? "to talk about or write about (someone or something) especially briefly : to mention (someone or something) in speech or in writing" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refer%20to I was referring to myself, keeping myself brief so of course I didn't include the irrelevant stuff. If you want to repeat something you have said, you cite it. I saw no reason to do so as the quote is easily accessible to everyone :P. I don't give a shit about the picture of me, I can prove it by calling you a dumb ass :P. The irony is that I am way too nice to you, you deserve much more ridicule :P. If you ask me something, I will respond. What is happening here is that you refuse to respond to my question about if PragerU always tells the truth 100% of the time. Why is that?
    1
  29.  @ChipperWilliams  I literally never said "But you said!" :P Not sure how you think I am the snowflake here, it is you who cannot deal with the video being pure crap and PragerU not speaking the truth 100% of the time. It is you who whine like a little bitch because I called you Mr. Sheeple. Now that is a snowflake if I ever saw one. Peace out, troglodyte.
    1
  30. @islanti we are not listening to the democrats, we are listening to the scientists. There are no people that are as neutral as scientists. They just enjoy figuring out how things work.
    1
  31. it is indeed difficult to choose side, but the extreme left is easier to live with than the extreme right.
    1
  32. counter culture is great, but it has to be true.
    1
  33. he is not blind, he just lies for money.
    1
  34.  @garetclaborn  relative see level change for Manhattan is totally relevant when we examine the statement "human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that" How reliable is the Dutch model in the long run?
    1
  35.  @garetclaborn  if you don't think it is relevant, I wonder what you mean when you say "last time i checked human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that". How do you move a skyscraper? If you want to argue the merits of the Dutch system, "last time i checked human settlements always move due to nature and even at 1 inch per year families will move on their own with no problem. of course the sea level change rate is not even close to that" is irrelevant. The Dutch system works now of course, that you cannot dispute. Will it work in the future, with climate change? That is a more interesting question. Will the Dutch model withstand the future challenges? This you have not addressed.
    1
  36.  @garetclaborn  you have clarified nothing, you have just repeated yourself. Surely you must know the difference.
    1
  37.  @garetclaborn  attention? are you kidding me? no one but you and me care what happens here. I just wanted to engage in a rational discussion with someone with a different understanding than I have. Are you telling me I should not?
    1
  38.  @garetclaborn  Which is why I didn't bring it up. I just picked a heavily populated place to highlight that you cannot move a skyscraper (not that I think you think, but to show the irrelevance of your comment about human settlements moving). You brought in another idea into the discussion. My question is not about the specific place, so I think it is possible to answer my question anyway, I just chose something concrete to make the discussion less vague. I would however argue that dealing with the water level issue becomes even more important if we have places sinking as it is. Maybe there aren't many places that do, but it hardly makes it less important. To show you how honest I am, let's chance city. Let's talk about Stockholm, another city by the water. How are they supposed to deal with the rising sea levels?
    1
  39.  @garetclaborn  so you don't want a genuine conversation?
    1
  40.  @garetclaborn  if you knew anything about how to have a constructive dialogue you would not say that. It is a shame, but honestly not that surprising.
    1
  41.  @garetclaborn  character assassinatio? what? please quote me where I did. My point was never shown invalid. That is what the dialogue is for, to examine our statements. You don't show it is invalid by saying so, you have to make a thorough logical argumentation, based on honest interpretation. You have answered, but we have to examine the answers to know if they are valid ones. You are doing everything you can to not engage in a genuine conversation with me. Why? Instead of talking trash about me, how about you actually practice what you preach and engage with me, in a genuine conversation?
    1
  42.  @garetclaborn  I think it is pathetic that you shy away from having a genuine conversation at the same time as you claim you want to have one. What a hypocrite. I am under no obligation to accept hypocrites, and the adult thing to do is to condemn them.
    1
  43.  @garetclaborn  everyone who reads this can see that I time and time again try to have a genuine conversation but you time and time again try to avoid it. You are the one running away, I haven't given up on having a genuine conversation yet. I am using the "genuine conversation" phrasing as that was what you said I didn't want to have, so I am here declaring that it is absolutely what I want to have. Let's talk. My agenda is to recognize the truth whatever it is. Is yours?
    1
  44.  @garetclaborn  yet again I am disappointed by your side of the fence, and you wonder why you have so little support for your ideas? As soon as a person want to engage in a rational discussion this is how you behave? smh
    1
  45.  @garetclaborn  lies? c'mon dude. Is this how you rationalize your behavior? I would benefit from man made global warming being a hoax, and so would you. Why do you give up? Don't you want people to see things as you?
    1
  46.  @BiggMo  considering propaganda defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." it fits very well. Misleading information, check. Promoting a political cause, check.
    1
  47. honestly, I kind of look forward to it.
    1
  48. It is indeed not common you see BS called out like this from the actual audience rather than external dissidents.
    1
  49. how do you define "beachfront property"?
    1
  50. no one ignores this. The funny thing is that it is the scientists you don't trust that told you that the "earth's climate has always changed".
    1
  51. Hey, at least now they accept that things are getting warmer. You didn't see that 15 years ago.
    1