Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
80
-
74
-
55
-
51
-
46
-
45
-
40
-
33
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
19
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reuben Handel
Oh my... Well... here we go...
> "Your hypothesis is completely unsupported and the mechanics of how this warming would come about is not agreed upon at all even by the advocates ."
Nonsense... The phenomenon of "Global Warming" has been understood for more than 120 years. - Since Svante Arrhenius.
> "That is why the IPCC puts out such a huge range of predictions."
No.
The reason IPCC puts out a range of predictions is:
1) They can't predict future emissions. That depends on politics.
2) All science operation with error-bars. IPCC just makes them explicit. The result of the projection is a probability distribution. You don't get the whole picture by just saying "1.5-4.5 C" ... there are likelihoods associated with that spectrum. - as with all scientific results.
> "5 years ago their prediction was 2-6 C increase if we doubled c02. In the last couple years they have reduced that to 1.5-4.5 C if co2 were to double,"
You are confusing numbers. The only thing which changed was that the lower range moved from 2 to 1.5.
> "Now anyone with a scientific mind would immediately notice that their range is double what their low estimate is. Their margin of error is gigantic, it's silly"
No it's not... As I wrote above, it's a probability distribution. And that's actually all we need to do risk management. If there's only even a 5% risk of utter catastrophe, then it would be foolish for anyone to not try to mitigate that. If you boarded a plane and the captain told you there were a 1% risk the plane would crash - would you fly?
> "But the climate does change and that could be bad, so let's look at what measurements we have to determine the rate of change"
yeah... let's do that.
> "1. Tidal Gauges. These are by far the best measure because first of all the danger is coastal flooding; nobody cares if it's 2 degrees warmer tomorrow than today."
That might be true for weather - but it's not true for climate. 2 degrees makes a HUGE difference wrt. climate and impacts ecosystems and precipitation patterns. It's simply a fallacy to argue like we were talking about the weather.
> "It's all about flooding in coastal areas."
... and salt intrusion.
> "And second of all the tidal gauges go back into the pre industial age so we can compare the rate of sea level rise in 1850 to the rate in 2000 and see how much it was effected by the increase in c02.
So what do they say?
The sea is currently rising at a rate of just under 2mm per year (are you scared yet?)
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm"
Actually ... it's 3.4 mm/year, and accelerating.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
> "And the rate in the past was also just under 2mm per year which the IPCC reluctantly admitted
"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm"
TAR was published 15 years ago. You are quoting obsolete statements.
Here's the AR5 text:
"There has been significant progress in our understanding of sea level change since the AR4. Paleo data now provide high confidence that sea levels were substantially higher when GHG concentrations were higher or surface temperatures were warmer than pre-industrial. The combination of paleo sea level data and long tide gauge records confirms that the rate of rise has increased from low rates of change during the late Holocene (order tenths of mm/yr) to rates of almost 2 mm/yr averaged over the 20th century, with a likely continuing acceleration during the 20th century (Figure 13.27). Since 1993, the sum of observed contributions to sea level rise is in good agreement with the observed rise. "
> "So the rate of sea level has not actually increased to any significant degree over the last century when all the co2 production happened. Nothing happened."
... which is simply a lie. Sea level is rising, it's consistent with the known thermal expansion of the oceans and the measures mass loss of the ice sheets. And it's accelerating.
Also ... you are COMPLETELY ignoring what we know about what's happening with the ice sheets and the fact that conditions has not been steady during last century. We have significantly increased our emmisions and there's huge inertia in the system.
You cannot just ignore such knowledge and pretend you can exptrapolate from from the past.
It's like driving a car fast towards a brick wall and claiming everything is fine, since you have been doing so for several minutes and nothing has happened - while you press the speeder even further down.
> "2. Satellite Measurements
Measuring the temperature of the entire globe was impossible before the satellite age. I know some people claim to have done it (this is called the GISS) but they are hacks and frauds."
sure... conspiracy theories are alway good arguments.
> "Besides actually measuring the entire globe instead of a tiny fraction (most of the earth's surface is ocean) the satellites also are not effected much by the urban heat island effect which ruins all of the land based attempts."
No it doesn't... it's been shown time and time again not to have any significant effect on the global estimate.
> "So in 1978 we figured out to use the satellites to actually measure instead of making wild estimates.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/October/tlt_update_bar_102016.png"
Yeah... and some people still haven't figured out that measuring surface temperature via satellite is NOT AT ALL simple. Actually ... the guy behind the RSS satellite dataset, Carl Mears, him self regard the surface temperature measurements as more reliable. Anyone claiming that satellite measurements provide some kind of ultimate truth is talking out of their ass.
Spend some time to look at the problems involved. There are a HUGE number of error factors for satellite measurements. Changing satellites, orbital decay, just to name a few.
> "So what we found was that first of all the rate of warming has been relatively constant since 78. Pay extra close attention to the period after 1998 which has an El Nino spike (like 2016) and notice the flat period for roughly 18 years after it. This is notable because in the 2000's China rapidly industrialized and doubled human co2 production. If these predictions were correct then we would have seen a massive increase to correlate with the massive increase in co2 production. But it didn't happen"
More nonsense... Even if satellite measurements were rock solid it would be stupid to assume that there's an instant temperature effect from increased CO2. That's not the case. There's plenty of inertia in the system.
It takes some time for the effect of extra CO2 to be expressed. That's why climate scientist operate with terminology like "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" and "Transient Climate Response" which are effects taking respectively centuries and more than 20 year to be expressed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
>"And so all the predictions that were made 30 years ago were proven wrong"
No. Actually... 2015 was right spot on what was predicted more than 15 years ago:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
> http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150603-story.html
... you should update your talking-points. They are 3 years old.
> http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
... which actually explain pretty well that we have known for some years now what the cause of the so called "hiatus" was: Internal variability due to the heat being temporarily absorbed in the deep Pacific ocean.
Anyone thinking this changes the fact of Global Warming needs to learn some physics. That heat absorption is temporarily shifted from the atmosphere to the ocean doesn't change the fact that the Earth as a whole in receiving 0.6W/m2 extra heat. It can only be a temporary effect and when it shifts back (AS IT HAS DONE THE LAST 3 YEARS) the atmosphere temperature will catch up the lost terrain.
2014, 2015, 2016 have ALL been the absolutely hottest year on record and every trace of any "pause" have completely vanished now.
> "This is why the IPCC drastically lowered their predictions from 2-6 to 1.5-4.5 recently."
No. From 2-4.5 -> 1.5-4.5. (you are still confusing numbers).
And they did that for AR5 which was released in 2013, since at that time the effect described in the Nature article above was not understood. It is now... actually we already had the basics at the time of the release of AR5, but editorial processes take time and such a huge report is almost certainly outdated already the day it is released.
> "And they are going to have to drastically reduce it again pretty soon. I see almost no possibility that we will come close to their high estimates"
Yeah... keep dreaming. Lie to your self.
> "The current rate of warming is just under 0.13 C per decade or 1.3 per century according to the satellites"
Actually ... it's more like 1.6-2.0 C/decade. But you still commit the fallacy of assuming linear extrapolation, - racing your car against the brick wall, looking in the rear-view mirror claiming you have everything under control.
Here's some actual research looking out in the actual driving direction:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2552.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+kiz oku
You should try listen to some of the information form the actual scientists then. People like Kerry Emanuel and Katherine Hayho ... That's the way to get your questions answered without bumping into screeching leftists.
"So if California is getting dryer, somewhere else must be getting humider then, no?"
Short answer - yes. But it's a little more complicated since the warming affects the atmosphere capability to contain water.
And I can tell you, that I live in one of these areas where everything has just gotten more and more wet each year.
"Wild fires always happened in Cali, so why do people keep rebuilding there if it's so hostile to life?"
That it's "hostile to life" is something you just claimed. Maybe they like the weather, I don't know... ask a Californian.
"Besides, forest fires actually are helpful to the flora. After a forest fire, trees and plants grow stronger than they were before."
In limited quantities yes. The goodness/badness of ANYTHING (from poison to CO2 to fires) are not a boolean binary question. The effects depend on exactly which physical mechanism you look at AND the concentration. Nitroglycerin is dangerous. But it's also heart medicine. It's a mistake to boil everything down to one bit.
Science shows that the increas in forest fires in North American lately has actually deposited soot particles on the Greenland ice sheet, making it darker - and thus melt faster. So ... that's an input.
> "Also, how can we be sure that we're really 100% responsible for this"
There's a short answer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc8mUI_cMKk
>"and that we could have even prevented it?"
Well ... we couldn't have "prevented it". But we could have acted MUCH earlier. The problem was already known in the 19th century and by the 1950's it was known to be potentially dangerous. In 1979 the science department of ExxonMobile reached essentially the same conclusion as the IPCC has today - and at the same time the National Research Council warned the president that waiting until we saw the explicit consequences might be waiting till it was too late. In 1988 scientist James Hansen of NASA warned congress and a few years later the IPCC was formed. But since then there's been a hugely successful misinformation campaign preventing any meaningful action. We have wasted at least 25 years entertaining the myths of this campaign.
"How can we be sure that, even if we're ACCELERATING global warming, it wouldn't still be happening naturally, just at a slower rate?"
What would be the scientific hypothesis for that? And why would that be a reason to not act?
It's almost like saying "How can I known that even if I quit smoking I wouldn't just get lung cancer for some other reason anyway"?
Difference being that we actually know of other plausible explanations for getting cancer... we don't do that for Global Warming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
aCycloneSteve
"I don't believe it's true and I don't trust the "scientists""
Well, that basically leaves you with only 2 options:
* Sign up for college and take an education in the field your self
* Find someone you do trust and let a scientist explain it to them. ... if you realize that your criteria for trusting someone else is that they also don't trust the scientists, then you have truly painted yourself into a corner.
"to produce a model that both predicts the temperature forward and matches the historical temperatures."
Which the scientists have already done. However, - they haven't done that to "prove" the theory. The theory doesn't rest on the models. It rests on physics. The models are created as a tool to understand the system.
I could link you to resources about that, but it would require you listening to actual scientists (which you said you don't trust) explaining the stuff...
"then after 10 years of seeing the accuracy of it's projections"
10 years is way to short a time to do such an evaluation. (you'd need more like 30). Fortunately we can do better than that.
Btw... Thank you for taking this approach.
In the 8 years I've been following this topic it's very rare that someone doubting the climate problem has done like you and taking a deep breath and thought about what it would take ... unless of course they ended up making absurd requirements for proofs which the science doesn't really predict anyway.
"On the flip side, what would it take for you to change you mind?"
That's a good question.
Now... first I will remind you of what Carl Sagan said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
... and given the level of support for the theory in the scientific community, I'd say the extraordinarey claim is that they are all wrong.
So it'll take something like JBS Haldanes "Fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian"
That's to say that not only must it be observations which cannot be reconciled with the theory... there would probably also have to be presented an alternative consistent theory which explained not only this new evidence, but also all the rest we already have.
"Twenty years of inaccurate projections?"
Depends on the conclusion about the explanation for this which the science reaches.
If it turns out that there's a reason which doesn't contradict the theory - like the Sun measureably just got weaker for 20 years, then no.
"Corruption in science programs?"
It would have to be truly monumental at scale... and there would still be lacking an alternative explanation.
Try imagine what kind of relelations about corruption in biology it would take for you to reject the theory of evolution.
"Profiteering by advocates?"
??? what? ... While the science is still solid? ... no.
It would be pretty predictable that people standing to gain on the science being true would not be stupid enough to work against it... but what difference would that make if the scientific evidence still overwhelmingly support it being true?
"I get the impression that the only way you will change your mind is if most of the scientific community publicly denounces global warming/climate change/weather change."
That would surely help ... I'll like to see the reason too though.
And btw.... again... If most of the community of biology changed their mind about evolution, I would also still like to see the actual fossils for rabbits in the Precambrian.
"If you are right that scientist's are incorruptible then eventually either you will be proven right or I will be proven right."
I didn't say scientists are incorruptible ... However... to explain the current state of science with corruption you'd have to have so many scientists all over the worlds in on the plot that it resembles the moon landing conspiracy.
Now ... to give you an example of something which would change my mind if observed, we'd have to look at what it specically was I was supposed to change my mind on.
Are we taking the correctness of the keeling curve?
Are we speaking of the correctness of the temperature record?
Are we speaking about the causal explanation of the temperature record?
... Assuming the latter, you'd have to make an observation which contradicted the greenhouse effect explanation AND have an actual alternative explanation which wasn't even more in conflict with observations. It's not enough to - say - observe that volcanos at the bottom of the sea has been contributing mcuh more to warming than we thought (as some suggest). You'd also have to explain why the stratosphere is then cooling. (which is a prediction by the current theory). ... and you'd have to go through geological time and see that there are alternative explantions for all the stuff that we currently only can explain with CO2 - like the PETM.
It's not simple to overturn well established theories like evolution and antropogenic global warming. It's a whole web of evidence which ties together.
But if you could do that - and make it all work together again in a different theory - then yes. That would convince me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russell Trakhtenberg
"I remember I asked a climate scientists once why the global temperatures dropped for nearly a decade in the 50s when industry was on a huge upswing, the answer was far from clear."
There a a lot of factors influencing the climate especially over short time spans. A single large volcano can make several years of cooling. Even for longer periods of statistically more large volcanoes than normally (like from 1200-1850) can contribute to changes in temperature.
And then there's solar output, internal variation in the climate system (mostly ocean cycles like ENSO and PDO), albedo ... and there are other effect from industry than CO2 - aerosols from coal cool the planet since they block sunlight.
So... climate scientist look at THEM ALL and try to explain every individual phenomenon taking all factors into account. They put up hypothesis and test them. The main hypothesis for the mid 20th century cooling is exactly that: Dimming from aerosols from industry. (as you said there was a huge (but dirty) upswing).
That hypothesis is supported by evidence that it was only day-time temperatures which cooled. Night-time temperature rose - since at night only the green-house effect is at play.
"And you have to agree that science is used a polarizing tool by nearly everyone"
No. I don't have to agree with that.
More specifically, I know I hear that a lot from the self declared "skeptics" (which they are not)... who again and again complain how the issue is presented in "the media".
But the thing is: "The media" is not the authoritative source for what the science actually says!! I couldn't care less about what CNN, Fox, Huffington Post or Buzzfeed thinks about the science. I care about what THE SCIENTISTS think about the science. THAT's what matters and whether it's true or not is TOTALLY independent on whether or not the media - or Al Gore for the matter - is "polarizing" the issue.
Why would you think you should evaluate scientific results on what media or politicians thought about them????? It's backwards IMNSHO.
"But again he did talk about vaccinations and the like".
Because he doesn't have an ideological bias wrt. that theory.
There are creationists who fully accept climate science. ...who are just religious. There are climate deniers who fully accept evolution (like Matt Ridley) ... who are just ideologically and financially ties to fossil fuels and laisses-faire.
And then there are anti-vax'ers who accept both evolution and climate science, but just think big-Pharma is out to get them.
I'm a classical liberal. But I'm also totally on the same page wrt. science as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michael Shermer ... and I must say I've been appalled by the amount of science denial which have crawled out of the woodwork in libertarian circles when the issue of climate comes up.
2
-
2
-
*****
I fully agree. ... 100% ... Not just based on Prager, (one nut case now and then can't hurt). But I think Dave has betrayed his original claim of wanting to "apply reason to the big questions of the day" with a long string of "stereotypical conservative ideologues" who all claim to be for "reason" and objectivity and science, but in fact are ideologically motivated to do everything but that.
I guess Dave has just been so focused on the fact that they also were "at war" with the Social Justice Warriors and regressive that everything ended up being about that.
Sad really... I had looked forward to a show with a classical liberal spirit which actually took reason an science seriously. And no! ... I don't think Dave enumerating all the leftists warm-feelings interviews he have had which I basically regard as without much substance as a good argument.
Sure Margaret Cho is probably nice to talk to - but the conversation was hardly about "the big questions".
I liked the Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Ayn Hirsi Ali, Maajdi Nawaz, Christina Hoff Summers and many others, but they are by now completely drowned in the right wing "conservative" science denying ideologues - like Alex Epstein, Crowder, Prager.
... and I've given up by now. This will never become the classical liberal hub where science and reason has an important role to play. Alone from the comment sections you can see that Rubin is now attracting more and more of these Prager, Shapiro, Moleneux fans who really couldn't care less about science and reason.... they just want to bash the leftists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
> MrKonradCurze
Well... if you claims were not about issued with the Danish system, then "no" - you don't have to document anything. ... on the other hand, I don't see you point. I've never said any of the US ways of doing things were good.
> I was applying basic economic principles that competition lowers prices
while goverment institution suffer from bureucrazy... Like I have
written Denmark is on place 34, the US is on 37. Not much difference.
Well ... you've not read the study you linked to then.
As I said they construct a very complex index with a lot of factors. Not all equally relevant for this debate.
However, if PRICE is the metric here you should have noticed that US comes in as the absolutely most expensive system per capita in the study.
> Not free of charge but it is more than affordable for everyone. Also
it's never free of charge because you pay taxes in a
Single-Payer-Healthcare System.
Arhh... You know what I meant. Don't be silly. Of course there's no such thing as a free lunch and the cost is payed through taxes. I'm aware of that. I don't believe in magic money trees.
The point was that you claimed (quote):
"If you go to the doctor and need help you will be treated regardless if you have an insurance or not."
... and I then gave you an example of a treatment you wouldn't get without the right insurance unless you payed up front. ... sure, you can wait till it becomes a matter for the ER and you will get treatment, but that's just not good enough.
I have personal experience here. If you go to the doctor in Denmark, with worries about a cancer like symptom, you will be diagnosed within few days (including PET-CT scans, biopsies and all the needed tests) and you will be offered treatment whether surgery or other immediately. No one ever asked for how you are insured or how you are going to pay.
Your claim about it being "more affordable for everyone" in the US is simply not true. You cannot be more affordable than the cost of your treatment not depending on what you payed. This is not a feature of the single payer system as such. As I said, the German multi-payer system is the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jonnyhan
"All I am saying is that my knowledge and choice on climate change is irrelevant. Because I am a libertarian first and foremost"
That is exactly what I base my understanding of you position on. I can't see I'm misinterpreting it.
Here we have a problem, clearly defined by science for which basic economic theory says that there's no solution to which doesn't involve regulation (besides pure luck) and which has the potential to end civilization (*)
And you say that we should not try to solve it because of ideological dogma.
That's a position I have a hard time respecting. If one think ones ideology is the best, then it must be because believing its principles can solve any problem the real world will throw at us.
If you have to give up and declare that a problem so decisive as potentially making the climate unlivable for not-to-be-solved, then it's a red flag that there's something fundamentally wrong with that way to thinking.
*: Bear in mind that though it's probably not the most likely scenario, it's a very real possibility that we will trigger something like the Perm/Trias event or the PETM and unless you learn to breath H2S, then it's game over for civilization as we know it.
Now ... I didn't actually say anything about which kind of regulation I - as a libertarian - would suggest/prefer. So most of you comment was pure speculation.
I don't just want any kind of regulation. Specifically, I'm very much against government picking winners and losers. What I would prefer is to harness the forces of the free market to solve the problem. Market forces can do impressing thing if the market actually works freely and all costs are factored in.
However... one have to notice that that's not the case today. No-one pays the cost they impose on other people (or future generations) when they emit CO2. There are HUGE negative externalities in the current marked. IMF have tallied this up to effectively trillions of dollars in yearly subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
So to make the market work towards a solution and not against, you have to correct that market error. That's why I support a fee-n-dividend carbon-tax as proposed by James Hansen.
Bear in mind that this solution (although named a "tax") will actually not increase the overall taxation. All it does is to correct a market error, so the marked becomes actually free and functioning.
And no - it doesn't involve a global tyranny. There's no global regulation going on here. it will however have a better chance at global effect, due to simple incentives. The only "global" legalese involved in this the the WTO provisions for allowing border-adjustments in import.
Also... for the record. I have nothing against Nuclear power. Though... it's not dwarfed by Solar. In terms of physics, the Sun provides the earth with more than enough energy. We only need to have more effective technology to capture it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Take the Red One
Ok... then... "similar" in the way that both are not socialism.
For whatever that's worth...
Sanders is not a classical liberal. He says so himself. He's a social democrat.
Although I support him, because for 1) The alternatives are horrible, and 2) Most of what he argues are non-controversial in a country like Denmark.
Hillary is ... well... I'm not sure she has an ideology. She's a professional politician.
"but the liberals in Europe are even more PC, anti-free speech, big government, and authoritarian than we have in America,"
When I say "Europe", I mean continental Europe.
In Denmark, "liberal" means "classical liberal".
Now... we actually have 4 "liberal" parties.
1) "Venstre" which is the largest and oldest and currently leads the government. They have watered down their ideological principles during the last 20 years to appeal to the center.
2) "Liberal Allicance" which is more purely "libertarian", but also has all the flaws of people like Rand Paul.
3) The social liberal party, which probably is closest to what you describe, being PC and regressive "leftish". But they still have liberal principles and during the former social-democrat/social-liberal government they kept the social-democrats in check.
4) The geo-libertarian party, of which I'm a member.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok... so this is for the whole globe. In other words, it doesn't in it self actually address the main argument that shifting weather patterns will cause extreme events of different kind in many places.
As a clear example you have been able to observe in the last few years in the US, the warming arctic weakens the jet-stream and make it do larger north/south excursions. It also makes it get stuck more easily and cause stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridiculously_Resilient_Ridge
So when the Jet stream gets stuck over north america and fail to contain the polar vortex in the arctic, it has some direct consequences for the US and Canada: The west coast experiences drought and the east coast experiences more rainfall (*) and cold air from the arctic (which you are experiencing AS WE SPEAK). (**)
Of course this will cause LESS wild fires in the north east. But it will also cause MORE in California.
As the article you refer to say:
"The researchers, however, also warn about the serious implications of climate change, land use changes and increasing population density in the so called wildland-urban interface. For instance, climate change has already led to a lengthening of the fire season in parts of North America and is likely to increase fire occurrence and severity in many regions of the globe including the UK.
The researchers note: "The warming climate, which is predicted to result in more severe fire weather in many regions of the globe in this century, will probably contribute further to both perceived and actual risks to lives, health and infrastructure. Therefore the need for human societies to coexist with fire will continue, and may increase in the future."
*: http://www.climatesignals.org/sites/default/files/events/NCA%20-%20observed%20change%20in%20very%20heavy%20precip.png
**: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=91517&src=nha&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=NASA&utm_campaign=NASASocial&linkId=46568442
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
... and further... to respond to the remaining claims you made:
> The 'catastrophic' 2 degree warming (currently at 0.4C above the 'normal') has simply not happened.
Again... NO ONE said we would be at 2 degree C warming now in 2018. ... It's baffling to me that this strawman can even be imagined as an argument.
What we have now is not 0.4C ... The latest IPCC reports explicitly puts 2017 1 degree C above the 1850-1900 average.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_faq.pdf
> What of the lull in tornado activity..the lowest in 65 years?
Tornado activity is to the best of my knowledge not something scientists have enough knowledge about to do any real predictions or have ever used as something we should see as an indicator. I don't know why you would bring that up in a context of steelmanning the science.
> And U.S hurricanes making landfall has halved since the 1930's
That's a weird metric. Seems almost invented to avoid discussing the science. AFAIK, the scientists have done NO predictions about frequency of US landfalls.
Here's the exact quote from the latest IPCC report: "Tropical cyclones are projected to increase in intensity (with associated increases in heavy precipitation) although not in frequency"
So ... why would you think a metric which disregards the intensity and also all non-US landfalling hurricanes is useful?
> Ocean acidification...died a quiet death..because we all know now..seawater cannot become acidic.
That's simply just a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry and the meaning of the word "acidification".
The pH scale is continuous. There's nothing magical about pH 7 ... what's meant by the word "acididication" is that the pH becomes LOWER. It can become lower regardless of the value it has. Ocean life's ability to build and maintain shells is affected regardless of the absolute value. If the pH falls, it's becomes harder to build shells. Period.
And it's measurable: https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/sea-butterflies-already-feeling-the-sting-of-ocean-acidification/
I hope this is an honest mistake.
> I don't deny the climate changes
It sure is some strange talking-points you have accumulated though.
> The anthropogenic driver in the system seems to have been an ephemera and as time has passed, and all the doomsday scenarios have fallen well short, it is becoming increasingly clear that the alarm was more political than scientific.
This is pretty much the definition of being a climate science denier though ... Why is it that you insist on strawmanning the science ?
> but they, and many of their supporters, seem more sane to me now than those on the left calling for violence, harrassment and civil disorder.
Yeah... I've seen a lot of "leftists" screaming "lock her up" lately .. not a mob at all.
> Finally, I think the Kavanaugh Hearings cemented it for me
So - I take it you believe he's innocent. I'm not convinced about that... but I do acknowledge that at present (given the deliberate limited investigation) there's no real conclusion. It seems like it was designed by the Republicans to get nowhere further than she-said-he-said.
Now... in an ideal world such accusations should of course have been dealt with in a closed setting. But I have a hard time seeing how the Democrats could have done anything differently. The Republican senators and the White House had already clearly demonstrated that they were not interested in a transparent process. So Feinstein decided not to do anything due to the request for anonymity. ... then it leaked somehow and Dr. Ford herself chose to come forward.
I simply don't get the outrage about the Democrats in this process. ... When it was Al Franken accused, everybody seemed to have a different standard.
It very much seems to me like the fact that Democrats demand a higher moral standard for this kind of stuff, also means that they are the only ones being held to it.
1
-
1
-
TRW1974
> They have been predicting nightmare scenarios for 30+ years...and little has come of it.
Sorry .. but that's just not reflecting on what has actually happened. You are not steelmanning the science here.
If you bothered to look it up, what they have been warning about is a slow moving disaster, which once underway would be unstoppable due to the intertia.
The warnings have been pretty much increasing as long as climate has been a field of science (since 1859), but especially after the 1950'ties where the airforce did real atmosphering CO2 observations and Keeling started measuring it. ... then later with stark warnings from the Charney Report in 1979 and James Hansens testimony in 1988 and the IPCC reports.
NONE of those have predicted that you should see the full effect now!! ... but they have all warned that (quoting the Charney report) "A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late”.
This will be very slowly getting worse until at some point we reach a tipping point where natural feedbacks throw us into an unstoppable catastrophe..
We see sea-level rise accelerating now ... and the measurement and predictions for the future explicitly doesn't take into account dynamic responses from the ice-sheets, like we're seeing now in West-Antarctica.
James Hansen predicted that the effect would be detectable through the background noise in the 1990'ties ... it was. That doesn't mean we should see all the predicted end result now. The prediction is that the earth will warm anything between 4 and 10C during the next century. ... 4C in it self is a catastrophe, but the uncertainty about how the feedbacks will amplify this should be a cause for worry. We don't know what's the "worst case" ... and how likely it is. But it will likely be something similar to the Perm/Trias Mass-extinction where large amounts of SO2 was released from the ocean
If you think that the science has predicted that there should be major effects, like 2 feet of water in the streets of NYC in 2018, then you are gravely mistaken about what this is about.
If you think that the fact that scientists have been warning about this without politicians acting for almost a century, is a reason to keep doing nothing, then you are gravely mistaken about the nature of the problem.
If you think it makes sense to wait doing something until you can see more than "little" coming from this, then you are gravely mistaken about our ability to control the inertia of the climate system. You don't just say "oh... they were right" and stop emitting CO2 and then it's "fixed". That's not how either the economy of the climate works.
> Wasn't Florida/NYS/California supposed to be two feet under water by now?).
No. That's also a myth.
> This sea level rise...is almost entirely a result of the last Ice Age ending where 8000 years ago.
Nope... that simply not true.
Listen ... I trust that the above misrepresenation of the science is not deliberate. But when a whole political party does it, it starts to threaten the planet.
1
-
1
-
... I'm not a socialist, - nor a social democrat ... I disagree with Bernie Sanders on some issues... but I think he's largely an honest politician. - and he gets it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4KyXQxyd5g
He's 100% right about what he says above. That's simply a fact based on the science. It has nothing to do with ideology. If we don't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere we're going to recreated conditions like the Perm/Trias mass extinction within about a century.
Personally - as a geo-libertarian - I would have hoped that could have been solved with a fee-n-dividend carbon-tax. It we could have done that, had we started like 10 years ago. But the Republicans have been preventing that. ... now, we're in much larger problems. I'm not sure it'll be enough to simple address negative externalities.
And honestly ... I pretty much no longer care about how it's solved. Just that it's solved. I want to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and not have to answer the question: "But you knew... Why didn't you do anyting?" ... It'll give me little comport at the time to point to things like this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-the-2016-republican-candidates-stand-on-climate-change/
Lindsey Graham is basically the only one who are calling out the science deniers. But apart from talk, - what has he done? Nothing? ... He's way more occupied by ensuring there's "clean coal" fetishist in the White House.
The Republican Party is the single biggest threat to the future of our grandchildren. ... not just because they are actively pushing to make the climate problem worse, but at the same time, they are undermining the institutions of liberal democracy, demonizing the press, protecting a corrupt divisive president using the office to enrich himself, who use all the methods we previously would have associated with authoritarian rulers, attacking the truth, and lying as if he thought the bigger a lie was the better.
1
-
TRW1974
If you think that's hyperbolic, you simply haven't realized the seriousness of the climate problem.
Just a few weeks ago the scientists released a stark warning about a dystopian future if we do not act. ... and they have basically been saying the same thing the last 25 years. Only now, we're running out of time.
In the mean time you have science deniers in the WH and in the Republican congress calling it a "Chinese hoax" and throwing snowballs on the Senate floor. For decades they have been obstructing action and Trump has even moved to burn more coal and drill for more oil ... (and I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian connections were fundamentally about fossil fuels too).
The Republicans have basically convinced their base that the science is a socialist conspiracy attempting to grab their SUVs ... in the mean time, CO2 levels keep rising and it's become harder and harder to stop the development, given the inertia in the climate system, in the economy and the feedbacks starting to happen.
If you think the weather has been weird in 2018 (we've had unprecedented drought for 2 months and even now in October it's +10C more than it ought to be)... just wait.
Temperatures will keep rising, sea-level rise will accelerate when West Antarctic glaciers start to collapse (https://www.livescience.com/63782-pine-island-glacier-rift.html), strong Hurricanes will become stronger and contain more water, and precipitation patterns will shift.
On top of the direct climate consequences to food production and coastal cities this WILL create conflicts around the world and huge refugee waves. The Pentagon knows this... Scientists, Economists, Insurance companies and the Military, know this ... the ONLY thing standing in the way of addressing the problem is the Republican party ... and they have done so for decades.
This is a lot more serious than people are aware of. And your politicians have utterly failed and sold their souls to cronyism.
1
-
TRW1974
First, - I agree that identity politics is toxic. However, Glenn Beck (who we kinda knew was insane), and (scarily enough) Dave Rubin seems to focus on a very small hysteric part of the non-Republican landscape. Yes, there are authoritarian "leftists" out there, but they are in NO WAY as dangerous to the future of liberal democracy as the Republican/Trumpist party. That's simply insane.
Alone the fact that Trump and the Republicans by now collectively have been obstructing meaningful action on Climate Change for decades and are still denying the science and actively making policy to further enrich fossil fuel cooperations. Trump even want to dictate use of coal by government regulations. (That's socialism for you).
Their policy and science denial is actively driving the planet over a cliff. That alone is enough to want them gone ... and calling people "fascist enablers" for that is, well... doing EXACTLY what you are accusing the left of.
Anyway... if Rubin and Beck had any kind of historic sense they would have noticed the striking similarities between historical fascism and they way Trumpism has taken the country. The disrespect for facts, undermining the media ("lügenpresse"), the admiration of foreign dictators, ... try read up on what Fascism actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QK1IVi4REI
Put on top of that, the blatantly dishonest Republican approach to democracy you see all around. Like the voter suppression currently happening in Georgia and North Dakota. The whole conspiracy theory about 3 million illegal voters and Kris Kobach being brought in to purge voter rolls. The whole Republican party smells of "If you can't win: Cheat".
I want liberal democracy. I don't want identity politics. I want respect for science and facts. I don't want corruption. - and I want action on Climate Change.
On that basis I find it glaringly obvious that the Republican party is a threat to the entire planet. ... and if Dave Rubin is going to insinuate that that's somehow "enabling fascists", then he has totally left the principles he started out with in his first episode, interviewing Sam Harris: Reason.
Dave Rubin has become an unreasonable Trumpist tool, if that's the case. I'm find myself 100% on the same page as Sam Harris and there's a world of difference between them by now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+matt sinco
You claim to "give sources", yet, I've asked you repeatedly where I can find the actual published science from those who you call your "sources". ... no reply.
So, I ask again. Where has Patrick Moore, Timothy ball and Ivar Giaever published their climate research ??
AND: It's pretty relevant to attack your "sources", since you seem to argue from authority when you, say, mention Ivar (not Ivan) Giaever.
Yes, he is a Nobel Laureate, but he is also capable of arguing such nonsensical arguments as (paraphrasing): "The Earth has warmed from 288K to 288.8K, that's 0.3% - what's the problem?"
Now, I don't have a Nobel price in physics, but it shouldn't take more than high school physics to understand how stupid that argument is.
It's like someone trying to refute your doctors warnings about your fever by saying: "Nonsense, your body has only warmed from 310K to 314K - that's 1.%, what's the problem?"
So me, and everybody interested in science, facts and reason a favor at stop quoting stuff you find in the blogosphere and start basing your arguments in the accumulated evidence of real science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
> I couldn't have been more clear. I provided ample quotes to illustrate your obvious strawman.
Well... except. What you quoted was about "the right" in general. Not about you.
>>"I didn't say that the government should stay the hell out of this particular problem."
>I'm getting sick of responding to your points, only to have you deny the points you just made.
But. I simply didn't say that.
Could you please give an EXACT quote where I said that?
You don't expect me to adopt positions you invent for me, do you? I mean... you have just accused me of using strawmen.!!
>>"IT'S NOT A SOLUTION"
>No, I never said it was.
I didn't say, that you said that. I just wanted to point it out that you still owe a proposed alternative solution.
>... to create massive socialistic tyranny isn't, itself a "solution"
You are the only one talking about socialism here. What I proposed is NOT socialism.
> I'm seeking common ground here on the most basic and obvious point I can find. If the patient is sick, he needs a doctor, not a fucking politician!!!!!!!
So - as I pointed out above - please suggest a doctor, a diagnose and a cure.
> If we agree on the disease, then we should be able to agree that punching him in the face and injecting him with the plague at least won't HELP him to recover!!!!!
Bad analogies and appeal to emotion brings the discussion no where.
------------------------------------
> Having said all of that, I'm happy to hear you're a libertarian. In that case, we can agree that if a person makes a mess, they and only they can be charged with cleaning it up.
Sure ... which is fully compliant with what I propose.
> So if an oil tanker spills off our southern coast, the person or company that spilled the oil must be held legally to clean up the mess. That's as basic as it gets, it's moral and it's the proper role for government.
Again - fully compliant with what I propose.
> Taxing stuff like "carbon emissions"
Just to be clear: I didn't advocate taxing carbon emissions, but rather adding fossil carbon to the carbon cycle. (which is simpler and addreses the problem directly)
> ...is so disconnected from the actual issue
No it's not. I directly addresses the "mess" you were talking about above. To say otherwise would be in confict with the science.
>.. and it DOES IN FACT line the pockets of politicians
No it doesn't. It goes directly to the public. Have you read the proposal?
> (where the fuck do you think "TAXES" go!?!?!)
This one goes directly to the public as a dividend. Why do you think it's called "fee-n-dividend" ?
No money goes to government. It does in no way increase the overall tax burden.
> and doesn't even accomplish the basic point I outlined in the above paragraph, namely, the one that makes the mess cleans it up or compensates the damaged parties.
It does... you just don't know what the "mess" is in this situation.
> So if a company is belching smog into the air, the people affected either accept it, or sue for damages or accept some payout.
It makes no sense to sue for damages in this situation. First of all. You cannot identify a single company/person or group of such to sue for a specific consequence. Secondly. The problem will remain and keep causing further damage for several thousands of years.
The "mess" here is not the water in my basement as a result of sea level rise. It's the extra fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> Ryan Foley-McKenna
Finding the truth of course ... based on the evidence.
So, - I completely reject your analysis of what I did.
Once the evidence unambiguously points to what the truth is, I don't see much room for deliberate misinformation from people ideologically biased to deny the facts.
Once again:
"there are questions where it's possible to just *BE WRONG, and what is
there to "validate" if someone insists that you have to "respect" any
wrong opinion.
I mean ...How long should I keep entertaining, say, a creationist
insisting that we should teach the bible in biology?"*
Now you seem to claim I'm more interested in "being right" than "finding the truth".
In order for that accusation to hold I think you have to (in that specific example) demonstrate that, either:
1) Teaching creationism in biology actually has scientific merits and it's just me who is confuses about what's the truth here., or
2) That we shouldn't value scientific facts to the degree where it should guide policy and it's not important what is right or wrong.
I on the other hand claim that I'm not specifically interested in "being right" - I'm interested in that our best scientific information about the real world around us guides policy.
In other words... we should not teach creationism in biology because it's wrong and in exactly the same matter, we should not entertain ideologically motivated scientific nonsense as what Steven Crowder spouts wrt. Climate Change, because it's wrong
Wrt scientific questions there IS actually such a thing as BEING WRONG ... the earth is NOT flat, and I don't care how much people believing it play the victim card.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1