Hello Paul!
I've been away for a while but I wanted to actually reply to this video directly. I noticed that a lot of people had ideological problems with this dude. But I "took the time" to watch as much of this video as I could to give you some more precise feedback. I typed it out a while ago (because I was banned) but I was really excited to reply to it. So, I've posted it below. Also, in case my rundown was not so good, a friend of mine posted a reply to a relative that used this video. I have not watched OR vetted the video but it does seem to address your video in fuller points. I would hope you'd be willing to engage me on MY arguments but if you'd rather watch a youtube video, have at 'er.
Enjoy!
_________
A few points that need to be raised as consideration:
1) I have a significant problem with the language this guy couches for this video. Using broad and suggestive language "they" "narrative", etc. I can KNOW for a fact that this dude is not going to have a significant, rational, science based denial of his numbers. He is looking to try to show YOU, the viewer, ways that "they" were trying to "lie" to you. He wasn't trying to address their work or discredit with his own rigorous study and evidence. He just wants to convince you just how "unscrupulous consensus scientists are" (not a direct quote but certainly the implication). That ALONE feels like enough for this windbag to be ignored since he's clearly appealing to baseless conspiratorial chicanery. But let's see what else comes up
Are we working on the assumption that "one of the best way to manipulate people is to adjust the start date? And that anyone who does so is unscrupulous? Because if that's your starting point and his main argument, hang on to your bootstraps.
2) I am sooooooooooooo tired of denialist taking advantage of simple minded, scientifically innocent people. Remember, we are talking about "GLOBAL warming" or "GLOBAL climate change". What does that mean? That means the NET introduction of energy into our biosphere is INCREASING our temperature. Having a bunch of data for Dippity Do,Ohio (population of 7000???) that shows that the temperature is decreasing means
AB.SO.LUTE.LY butkiss and cannot in my mind FATHOM why someone trying to utilize evidence that the warming of the whole earth (500,000,000 km2) can be disproven by the "cooling" of a town that is 11.03km2.
Seriously, even you must be able to see the ABSOLUTELY absurdity of such an argument. It's like when I'm wilderness camping, if I were to go to the bathroom in the forests of a Rocky Mountain National park and someone were to suggest that the entirety of North America was covered in human excrement. I would also point out that basically every graph presented is only talkong about America. It's warming of the entire planet. The hockey stick graph gets flattened in the middle ages a bit depending on whether your data is global or northern hemisphere only due to significant readings in the southern hemisphere. Needless to say, regions would not necessarily have uniform temperature changes. And there isn't uniform warming the world over. So focussing solely on us data is just, kinda weird.
But, I'm open to hearing how you feel that that is a reasonable and RATIONAL argument.
3) The quality of some of these graphs is so totally embarrassing, and evidence is questionable. I don't even know where to start.
a. Some of them have all the indicators of graphs he made himself (eg: Arctic Sea Ice Extent; there is no data source...heck, y axis of the graph doesn't even have a label!! How can this be seen as acceptable evidence? And how can he have the gall to suggest that a graph of that poor a quality would EVER be produced by a scientifically literal person (skeptic OR consensus) I have other, bigger problems with that graph but I will revisit them.
b. The "sea level during presidents". So first off, this data (from battery park I think it is) contradicts most other tide stations around the world. So we have ONE park that shows consistent rises and we have MANY tide gauges and satelite measurements that suggest the opposite. Apologies, but I'm going to side with data that is corroborated by OTHER data and reject outliers. Rejecting outliers is ANOTHER scientific strategy that gets used because it allows for the possibility that the source of the data maybe experiencing some kind of microconditions that may be having it's own impacts.
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
Unfortunately, some people with limited statistics training may not understand why that is dangerous and innaproriate. But they srill put ALL OF THEIR FOCUS and energy into those outlier points and give them the MOST creedence.
c. ALL of the fire fighter graphs. He thought the "time cut off was convenient and manipulative". What did he leave off that was solved by a 20 second google search?
The US Forestry service invested millions and MILLIONS into their fire fighting network and equipment in the 30s and 40s. THIS is what caused the drop in fires. So what does that mean? It really makes the data before this irrelevant. Think about it. If you don't see a fire start for 3 days, it's going to burn more and be harder to put out. These investments CLEARLY had a profound impact on the US's ability to fight fires. So that argument is dumb.
d. Now, onto the arctic sea ice. This one was by FAR the most damning in my mind. Because not only was he dishonest; he actually participated in the EXACT strategy of "manipulation" he continues to accuse consensus scientists of doing. Find the spot in the video where he shows his graph. Compare his graph to this one
https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-loss-1940s.htm . Please see the end of the 5) for the explanation of dishonesty on his part.
5) It has become difficult, given this particular presenter's dishonesty, to go through the whole video. When the quality of someone's character comes through in their presentation of facts, I can be kinda quick to not bother to listen to them. He frequently states throughout the video "this was a graph they presented to policy makers". So first off, I can tell you RIGHT now scientists don't provide ONE graph to support their point. They would provide several dozen. Of course, he's also quoting the IPCC report from the 1990s (as if there hasn't been new research since then? Do you see a problem here?). Had this conspiracist been honest, he could have used a study of data from 2008 and would have been included in subsequent IPCC reports. Newer data is ALMOST ALWAYS better data So, there is ANOTHER misrepresentation. I include for your perusal and approval the data set from the 2008 study (above)
Please understand that I am CERTAIN, given just the few I have included here, this man cannot be trusted with providing, analyzing or even discussing the data he presents.
6) Now, I have a summary question for skeptics:
Why are you NEVER skeptical of skeptic scientists?
Why is it that their work is never viewed with skepticism? Skeptic lay people NEVER EVER question the skeptics. If they are skeptical, they should be skeptical of ALL science. They are not.
Fundamentally, it appears that the only answer to that question that we are frequently given is some kinda Galileo hero complex. But in fact, all appearances are actually, that a) Skeptics don't understand the supporting data. b) Climate skeptics are allowing ignorant contrarianism to remain alive.
So now, I'm going to let you know about a wonderful CHRISTIAN climate scientists named Katerine Hayhoe. She is eloquent, logical, WELL versed in the science and is absolutely without ill repute.
You'll recall that silly old "97% of research in X years supports current theory". Skeptics hate that one.
Well, you're about to hate that even more.
The 3% of scientific study gave skepticism to the current consensus worked out to 38 studies. It turns out that EVERY ONE of those studies had significant errors in their work. That's right 100% of scientific studies, skeptical of the consensus model, contained poor science.
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
So then my question becomes: What are your opinions on those scientists? I ask that question of Creslaw too. You claim you become skeptical of the consensus because some consensus scientists (individually) MAY or MAY NOT have been incorrect. Well, there you are. I've just shown you 100% of the skeptic science of the last decade (or the dates found in the article I linked) has been discredited.
What do you do with that information?
Are you skeptical of skeptics now; or are you skeptical of any scientist that dares to undercut your idols?
Do you need for me to find the study itself? Because I'm certainly willing to. But if I'm being honest, I'm not sure why you'd need it; you kind of implied work like that would likely be far above your head. The article gives a fairly clear breakdown of the problems found.
I appreciate what seemed like an open mind to the possibility that this video is worth criticism. So I've given it. I am curious to hear how you choose to reply to the claims.
__
Here is the video:
