Uploaded May 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This is a correction to my last video at youtube.com/watch?v=gquDeXjoLpk
The same graph was shown in my critique of Climate: The Movie
Thanks to the two posters who pointed out the error, I am always grateful to people who help me keep my channel as accurate as possible.
The correction doesn't change the point I made, otherwise I would have taken down the video. I issued a correction in the video description, but that doesn't have graphics to illustrate the point. So I'll upload this, and put a link in the corrections section of previous videos.
This is a correction to my last video at youtube.com/watch?v=gquDeXjoLpk
The same graph was shown in my critique of Climate: The Movie
Thanks to the two posters who pointed out the error, I am always grateful to people who help me keep my channel as accurate as possible.
The correction doesn't change the point I made, otherwise I would have taken down the video. I issued a correction in the video description, but that doesn't have graphics to illustrate the point. So I'll upload this, and put a link in the corrections section of previous videos.







![26 Science vs. the Feelies
SOURCES:
0:00 Clips from my previous climate change videos
0:38 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
0:50 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
0:54 0:54 Global Warming on YouTube, done by casiopeia project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVASFcMwTXk (this video accepts that CO2s greenhouse effect is larger than its 0.039% presence in the atmosphere, but goes on to diminish its role on the basis that it constitutes only 4% of greenhouse gases).
1:03 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
1:07 Tim Ball, The Great Global Warming Swindle
1:10 John Coleman Global warming, the other side
1:14 Christopher Monckton, speech for Free Market Institute at St Paul Oct 2009
2:03 On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896 (First calculation of energy absorbed and re-radiated by CO2)
2:04 The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature G. S. Callendar,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 (Shows wavelengths at which CO2
absorbs radiation)
2:17 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
4:03 Christopher Monckton testimony at Congressional hearings on climate change
4:51 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
6:10 Arrhenius and Callendar papers from 2:03
6:30 John Shimkus at Congressional hearings on climate change
7:22 Sen. James Inhofe
8:06 Dennis Kucinich
8:30 Chad Myers on Lou Dobbs, CNN
8:34 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
9:24 Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change on YouTube
9:56 Phanerozoic CO2 levels after Berner and Royer
10:15 Map is from Cretaceous climate-ocean dynamics: future directions for IODP Colorado, July 2002
Source for sea level 50m-70m higher than today: The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change, Miller et al 2005.
11:16 Debating whether global warming is a threat or just media hype by Mark Putnam
www.helium.com
11:41 Creationist Seminar Beginnings #1 Eric Hovind
11:50 Where did God come from? Ken Ham
11:58 The OReilly Factor Bill OReilly interviews Richard Dawkins
12:55 Michael Coren and Tim Ball - Straight Talk On Climate Change
15:14 Penn and Tellers Bullshit!
Two other comments I anticipate Ill get:
1) You didnt understand what [insert name here] meant.
Yes, thats entirely possible. In the absence of facts and figures, a feelie argument is usually vague and ambiguous, often hinting at some elusive point thats never explained. When I read a scientific paper, on the other hand, I understand exactly what its saying. The hypothesis is laid out, the methodology explained, the observations and calculations clearly shown, and the conclusion spelled out. Thats the difference.
2) The idea that CO2 is a trace gas is not a feeling. It can be shown that it has no effect on climate.
My response: Yes, but the feeling is that because CO2 is a trace gas then it follows that it has no effect on climate. If this is correct, please cite a study that has some facts and figures to support it, otherwise it remains just a feeling. If you have a source with some other evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate, then I have probably covered it in a previous video. 26 Science vs. the Feelies](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OjD0e1d6GgQ/mqdefault.jpg)


