Newspaper Headlines

Cameron taunts "bully" Brown - The Sun

Battling Pain: Are Doctors Too Reluctant to Prescribe Opioids - Times

Couple shot dead "failed by police" - The Guardian

How It All Ends

No Holds Barred Part 1


No Holds Barred Part 2


No Hold Barred Part 3

In this series of videos, he tries to convince skeptics of global warming that their point of view is not supported by any rational thought. He states the four main claims that skeptics use to doubt the gravity of climate change, and then juxtaposes them to what science tells us. Skeptics claim: we don’t know that global warming is true, isn't it still being debated? Science is never certain (NAS and AAAS, we are in the test tube). Skeptics claim: how are we to decide something if we can't know for sure what's going on? By using the risk assessment, it becomes clear that global warming is more probable than not. Skeptics: Unless we caused it, we shouldn't interfere with it. By explaining the mechanics of climate change, it becomes clear that it is caused by humans. Skeptics claim: It is way too big for us to stop and if we try we might over-shoot and end up in an ice-age or make the warming worse. All that needs to be done is to stop the forcing of the climate system. There's lots of ways to do that without reducing the standard ways of living.

Falsifiability is an idea in science that establishes whether a claim someone makes is even worth examining. When a claim is not falsifiable, it cannot be proven wrong. The fact that they are false cannot, even in principle, be demonstrated. If a claim is not falsifiable, there is no way to ever know. In a debate both sides need to provide a test and a hypothetical result of that test, that they would accept as disproof of their claim. If they can't do that, their claim isn't falsifiable, and it is not worth debating.

The statements of highly qualified people and organizations scientifically prove the skeptics of global climate change wrong. They all agree that the feedback loops of the climate system are long enough, that by the time it is obvious, it is too late to do anything about it. Skeptics seem to ignore the qualified people saying that action needs to be taken now. Is there a scenario that would convince skeptics to take action on climate change? If not, they are not being rational. Bias is blinding to any contradicting opinion, with a goal of simply preserving ones beliefs. Arrogant ignorance combines with aggressiveness because the skeptics are tired of constantly hearing that they are the problem (that they are bad for just going on living their lives). This causes them to lash back with any small bit of knowledge they picked up. Skeptics respond to environmental problems by stating that there is no problem, there is a problem but it is exaggerated and not really serious, or that now it is too late to stop it. However, action is necessary and still possible.

On a credibility spectrum the skeptics barely have any reliable sources, while evidence supporting global warming is supported by highly qualified organizations. Calling FOR action are professional organizations, with highest expertise, and lowest bias, industry organizations making statements that contradict their normal bias, and global warming was elevated to a national security concern. On the other hand, there are no organizations of the same credibility calling for no action. People and organizations of less credibility calling for action include six Nobel Prize winners, petitions, advocacy organizations, and professional individuals. On the other hand, calling for no action are only four Nobel Prize winners, fewer petitions, fewer advocacy organizations, and professional individuals with less qualifications.

Skeptics would need to explain how statements of AAAS and NAS made it through the peer review process of the most well respected organizations of the world. If skeptics don't listen to them, why would they listen to anybody? Why don't skeptics reject all science?

To prove his point, he is constantly contrasting points made by skeptics to the points supported by science and basically everyone else. He provides examples of every claim he makes, sometimes with the use of jargon, as to sound more credible and serious. Furthermore, he uses repetition when listing the “highly qualified” people and organizations, mainly to emphasize the importance of these credible sources in persuading skeptics that global warming does, in fact, exist. The producer of this video uses hyperbole when judging the skeptics, although they deserve it, making them sounds stupid, to further promote the idea that global warming exists.