Comments by "Jason Dashney" (@jasondashney) on "Is There Still a Debate Over Climate Change? | Alex Epstein | ENVIRONMENT | Rubin Report" video.

Are you telling me that every time someone has an opinion you agree with talks about something that you check up on, then judge them based on their academic credentials? I doubt it. It goes both ways, DG. That doesn't make you a "bigot", but it does kinda make you hypocritically closed minded. I don't mean that in a harsh way at all, I'm sure you're a good person, I'm just trying to make you aware of your own biases before calling others out on theirs.
3
Ad hominem at it's finest. That sucks because I really want to hear reasoned arguments on both sides of this debate but EVERYBODY seems to be an ideologue zealot so I have no fucking idea what to believe.
2
Bang on. It bugs me when people strongly on one side of a debate just spout their side only without really even trying to engage the other. It's like the greed vs hippy fights. The money side says "But jobs and quality of life, you idiots!" and the hippies say "It's the air we all breathe, you idiots!" and never try to find that common ground and build from there. How about the greedy say "When there's more money because of X,Y, and Z that means we have more available funding to help environmental causes and help for the homeless blah blah blah" and the hippies could say "When there's less income disparity, the entire economy does better so even the capitalists benefit because more people have money for their shit, and you will live a longer, happier life with clean air so you can enjoy your yacht with your great grandkids". But they don't. No wonder fuck-all gets solved. People on the whole are not interested in finding solutions, they are interested in getting angry and being "right".
2
Marty: if your electricity for your electric car comes from coal fired plants, then you are still emitting all kinds of fossil fuels even with your electric vehicle (not to mention the horribly toxic chemicals and things that need to be mined to go into the batteries). Also your argument is just plain fucking stupid because owning physical devices has zero to do with your intimate knowledge of, well...anything about them.
2
"Climate scientists are guilty of alarmism" - Thank you! That's why I've never, ever seen a rational, intelligent debate about climate change, and I've looked. A lot. One side says you're an idiot sheep if you believe any of it, and the other side tells you that you're an evil "denier" if you question any of it. That leaves the truly objective in the dark. You never hear both sides. Okay, water levels rise: Is that really "bad" on a planet that is 70% water? The water gets more acidic: do any species benefit from that or do 100% of them suffer? Same question about melting arctic ice. You seldom hear a damn thing about species that are thriving due to it. I honestly kinda think that Mother Nature doesn't give a fuck either way because she abhors a vacuum so she'll fill any voids, and that it's humans who will suffer the most. That makes the whole "We're destroying the planet" argument seem to phoney that I have a hard time getting on board.
1
C'mon man, there's so much evidence that politics plays a major part in science. Just look at all the evidence lately about how so much of published science is not repeatable and in fact, dead wrong. Every scientist will tell you about "what it takes" to get published and by no stretch is it all strictly about "facts". Wins are considered far, far, far more valuable than losses so people will go to great lengths to make sure their study is a "win" so that they'll get published. It's as if people thing scientists are not human and prone to the same human idiocy as everyone else. And what is a "fact"? We have new discoveries that trump old facts all the time. Stop worshipping at the alter of science because that makes you as much of a ideologue as a Bishop.
1
Desmond - Maybe you need to read his comment again. He's just saying that you can't just go "The other side is wrong and they are stupid and Anti-Human and I am right because I'm right". You have to back your arguments up. Your last sentence is EXACTLY Phil's point.
1
"I do wonder though, what value is there to be gleaned from talking to people like this? " -I always want to hear contrarian views to absolutely everything. To deny them is borne of ideology, especially from such a complex topic as climate change. It's not some thing like "Here are 5 bales of hay and if I add 1 bale I'll have 6 bales, and if I add water they'll get wet". It's much more complicated and nuanced than that so yeah, there's a lot of great reasons to have contrarians on. This guy unfortunately didn't really address much and kinda went all ad hominem which sucks because I really want to hear all sides of a debate, and this was almost no sides of the debate because facts were barely discussed.
1
I get what you are saying and I don't think you're 'wrong', but I still disagree. If he pressed people more, he would be creating an entirely different environment. One where people have their feet held to the fire is so different from just giving people a platform and they can have as much rope as they want. The odd time it'll bug me Rubin lets something slide, but then I remind myself that his respectful approach allows more disparate types to want to come on the show because they know they'll be allowed to be themselves, to either lift themselves up or dig themselves a hole. The more I watch the show the more I think his style in the long run leads to the best guests who get to be themselves and let the chips fall where they may. I like he very hands off approach.
1
phjiggs- YES. That's exactly what he's saying. You should never 100% blindly follow anything. Always keep that 0.25% chance they could be wrong in the back of your head. Throughout the ages there have been countless "facts" that have turned out to be dead wrong, and in each of those ages they thought "Our methods are perfect so doubting is heresy". You think in the 21st century we've magically gotten to a place where every single thing we know is "fact" and we will never ever prove any of them wrong? C'mon.
1
What's funny is how many commenters are pissed off about that because he didn't turn this into an inquisition.
1
Try finding rational, dispassionate, objective people for both sides of that debate. This guy is as locked into his own ideology as the other side is. I've tried looking into climate change stuff and I can't come to any solid conclusions because both sides come at it with such bias and furor. Ask a climate scientist "How much? What's our percentage of causal? How much of a temperature rise over how long?" and you'll just get yelled at, even though scientists vary wildly in their estimates. If there's that little consensus in what the actual effects will be, don't fucking yell at me when I ask questions.
1