Don't go to YouTube for your climate change facts, go to these links instead...
YouTube "scientist" activist1's video
YouTube "scientist" activist2's video
YouTube "scientist" activist3's video
Hmm! That's convinced me! Lol!
Seriously, if you don't think YouTube is a good place to find out the facts for one side surely it's not the place for any side.
It reminds me of a climate debate on another forum where someone said that you shouldn't listen to a piece on some newspaper websites because it didn't agree with his views. He instead posted a link to the commons library report submitted to a HoC Committee looking at climate change. Sounds a good source. When you actually read it it was pure propaganda from greenpeace. When you looked at the bottom of the report there was a disclaimer which said the report was submitted but might not have been read or used by the committee. The truth was that greenpeace did this a lot, they submit propaganda reports to commitees so that they can be quoted from the official HoC records. Ppl are more likely to believe it from there.
So imho your best way to truth is to read research outputs from credible institutions.
Decades ago I had a friend who was a manager in an institute funded directly by UK government based in my nearest university but separate from the university. He ran various PhD and post doc researchers amounting to millions of pounds. They went around the world carrying out the research including Antarctica. He got into it when climate change research was the hot topic. I got me very interesting, early information on climate change from him, at the coal face so to speak.
YouTube "scientist" activist1's video
YouTube "scientist" activist2's video
YouTube "scientist" activist3's video
Hmm! That's convinced me! Lol!
Seriously, if you don't think YouTube is a good place to find out the facts for one side surely it's not the place for any side.
It reminds me of a climate debate on another forum where someone said that you shouldn't listen to a piece on some newspaper websites because it didn't agree with his views. He instead posted a link to the commons library report submitted to a HoC Committee looking at climate change. Sounds a good source. When you actually read it it was pure propaganda from greenpeace. When you looked at the bottom of the report there was a disclaimer which said the report was submitted but might not have been read or used by the committee. The truth was that greenpeace did this a lot, they submit propaganda reports to commitees so that they can be quoted from the official HoC records. Ppl are more likely to believe it from there.
So imho your best way to truth is to read research outputs from credible institutions.
Decades ago I had a friend who was a manager in an institute funded directly by UK government based in my nearest university but separate from the university. He ran various PhD and post doc researchers amounting to millions of pounds. They went around the world carrying out the research including Antarctica. He got into it when climate change research was the hot topic. I got me very interesting, early information on climate change from him, at the coal face so to speak.