Uploaded February 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
DONATIONS TO CHARITY:
I do not ask for contributions. Instead, please support the work of Health in Harmony, which trades forest protections for health care. It's an innovative scheme that has seen thousands of acres of tropical rain forest protected and also restored, and the health of nearby villagers greatly improved.
See my video here: youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GRugP9pU for an explanation of their work.
Please donate here: healthinharmony.org/donate
Health in Harmony also has a live website: healthinharmony.org
CORRECTIONS and CLARIFICATIONS:
1) From @Polarniji: 10:34 -- "A fertilized zygote is classified as an embryo rather than a fetus up to 8 weeks of pregnancy."
2) I said: "For the first five weeks a foetus has no sex." As one person pointed out, this is not strictly true. A zygote does have chromosomes that can be tested. Although chromosomes alone are not the definition of a sex.
3) A couple of people thought the mixing of pink and blue colors (representing the binary sexes) had some kind of hidden meaning, like a scientific measure of the extent of 'intersex,' or a gradient between all-male and all-female. As I said in the voiceover, this just represents a mixing of blue and pink on an artist's palate, it's not quantitative. I just did a google search for 'mixing pink and blue' and that was the best image that came up. Try it -- you'll find the same image yourself.
For those who think this is some sort of scientific analysis, the clue is that there's no scale, no x-axis, no y-axis, no figures and no reference to any scientific study. So please don't count the number of pixels, measure the color of each on an RGB scale and then calculate the gradient in a graph, trying to find some deeper scientific meaning. Just enjoy the random mixing of pink and blue.... Oh wait, there's no hidden meaning in that either, I'm not saying you should enjoy the condition known as intersex (DSD.) Oh hang on... I'm not suggesting you shouldn't enjoy it either. Oh heck, whatever... don't take everything so literally.
4) A few people don't like the word 'assign' when describing the action of putting a sex on a birth certificate. Here's my reply to someone who thought the word 'implied' something:
You say the word 'implies' something, but I never implied anything except that this describes the action of writing the sex of the baby on the birth certificate.
According to the dictionary definition, "If you assign a particular function or value to someone or something, you say they have it." So if a doctor fills in 'male' on the birth certificate then he says the baby has the function of a male. By definition, he is 'assigning' the sex.
If you don't like the word 'assign' for the act of writing male or female on a birth certificate, then pick another word. I never get hung up on what word to use, because the action of writing 'male' or 'female' in a birth certificate remains the same, regardless of what you call it.
DONATIONS TO CHARITY:
I do not ask for contributions. Instead, please support the work of Health in Harmony, which trades forest protections for health care. It's an innovative scheme that has seen thousands of acres of tropical rain forest protected and also restored, and the health of nearby villagers greatly improved.
See my video here: youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GRugP9pU for an explanation of their work.
Please donate here: healthinharmony.org/donate
Health in Harmony also has a live website: healthinharmony.org
CORRECTIONS and CLARIFICATIONS:
1) From @Polarniji: 10:34 -- "A fertilized zygote is classified as an embryo rather than a fetus up to 8 weeks of pregnancy."
2) I said: "For the first five weeks a foetus has no sex." As one person pointed out, this is not strictly true. A zygote does have chromosomes that can be tested. Although chromosomes alone are not the definition of a sex.
3) A couple of people thought the mixing of pink and blue colors (representing the binary sexes) had some kind of hidden meaning, like a scientific measure of the extent of 'intersex,' or a gradient between all-male and all-female. As I said in the voiceover, this just represents a mixing of blue and pink on an artist's palate, it's not quantitative. I just did a google search for 'mixing pink and blue' and that was the best image that came up. Try it -- you'll find the same image yourself.
For those who think this is some sort of scientific analysis, the clue is that there's no scale, no x-axis, no y-axis, no figures and no reference to any scientific study. So please don't count the number of pixels, measure the color of each on an RGB scale and then calculate the gradient in a graph, trying to find some deeper scientific meaning. Just enjoy the random mixing of pink and blue.... Oh wait, there's no hidden meaning in that either, I'm not saying you should enjoy the condition known as intersex (DSD.) Oh hang on... I'm not suggesting you shouldn't enjoy it either. Oh heck, whatever... don't take everything so literally.
4) A few people don't like the word 'assign' when describing the action of putting a sex on a birth certificate. Here's my reply to someone who thought the word 'implied' something:
You say the word 'implies' something, but I never implied anything except that this describes the action of writing the sex of the baby on the birth certificate.
According to the dictionary definition, "If you assign a particular function or value to someone or something, you say they have it." So if a doctor fills in 'male' on the birth certificate then he says the baby has the function of a male. By definition, he is 'assigning' the sex.
If you don't like the word 'assign' for the act of writing male or female on a birth certificate, then pick another word. I never get hung up on what word to use, because the action of writing 'male' or 'female' in a birth certificate remains the same, regardless of what you call it.



![2013 coveted GOLDEN CROCODUCK - time to vote!
Voting now begins for the 6th annual coveted Golden Crocoduck. The award is given for the biggest breach of the 9th Commandment in pursuit of the creationist cause. Five nominees made it to the final voting list, and I have highlighted them all throughout the year.
To vote, please visit http://tiny.cc/crocoduck
The winner will be announced on October 28, the Feast Day of St Jude Thaddeus, patron saint of lost causes.
[Music: Bonnie Pink cover version of the Southern All Stars Manatsu no kajitsu] 2013 coveted GOLDEN CROCODUCK - time to vote!](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/is7kfWWgm64/mqdefault.jpg)






![12 - Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming... or maybe not.
Last week a paper by researchers at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies led to sensational headlines that the Earth will only warm by as much as 1.64 degrees centigrade in a couple of centuries. Sound too good to be true? Of course it does.
Ive put this video together faster than I normally would because the myth has already gone viral. But its so easy to spot the flaws you have to wonder why people who call themselves skeptics arent skeptical enough to check even the most basic facts.
CORRECTION:
Cbrhawk1 points out an error at around 3:15. He writes: [Potholer] applies a subtractive 0.26C to the 4.5C estimate of the IPCC rather than properly applying the feedback to the formula. My response: The paper doesnt show how to apply the formula to other models, which is why I subtracted the 0.26 degC figure directly. However, I agree with Cbrhawk1 that it is not that simple, because higher temperatures would presumably lead to higher evapotranspiration rates. If we apply the figure pro-rata, then warming of 4.5 degrees would be reduced to 3.9 degrees.
I have no argument with that at all; evapotranspiration is a negative feedback, and the paper shows that it is greater than previously estimated. The point of this video is to debunk the absurd conclusion that global temperatures are only set to rise by 1.64 degrees because of evapotranspiration. The focus of the study was not to determine global temps but to quantify the negative feedback effects of evapotranspiration. Since the model started with a low warming figure, it resulted in a low warming figure when evapotranspiration was plugged in. Had the model started with a higher warming figure, it would have resulted in a higher warming figure when evapotranspiration was plugged in.
SOURCES:
Original myth published in:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Greener Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming
NASA press release
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html
Original paper:
Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach
L. Bounoua et al, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 2010
Bio of Lewis Page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/lewis-page
Mauna Loa CO2 growth data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth
from economic activity, carbon intensity, and
efficiency of natural sinks
J. Canadell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007
Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
A.P. Sokolov et al, MIT 2009
Myth from the Register repeated:
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/2010/12/14/new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-means-just-1-64%C2%B0c-warming/
...and again...
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219487-New-NASA-model-Doubled-CO2-means-just-1-64C-warming
...and again...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9045/New-NASA-model-Doubled-CO2-means-just-164degC-warming-Previous-models-failed-to-properly-account-for-an-important-cooling-factor-which-will-come-into-play-as-CO2-levels-rise
...and again...
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-means-just-1-64%C2%B0c-warming/
...and again...
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UNs IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-leftistsliberal-elites-corrupt-stupid-hypocritical/
...and again...
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8241-new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-means-just-164dc-warming
...and again...
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UNs IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/nasa-peer-reviewed-study-finds-low-sensitivity-to-co2-doubling-the-uns-ipcc-global-warming-science-i.html
...and again...
Greenhouse Gasses Arent Going To Be A Problem For Centuries Say Scientists From NASA
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/greenhouse-gasses-arent-going-to-be-a-problem-for-centuries-say-scientists-from-nasa-wait-what/
Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply
M. Jung et al, Nature, October 2010 12 - Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming... or maybe not.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l3vIWD4tAHc/mqdefault.jpg)