Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Personal Freedom & the Role of Government | John Stossel | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. ... Well... Richard Dawkins once said: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” I guess the same goes for people with John Stossels approach to global warming.
    19
  2. ... except one crucial thing: Evidence. The theist would claim people are ignorant about the evidence for God, but is never really able to produce any. There's plenty of evidence for evolution - and man made global warming. And let's give Stossel the benefit of the doubt and say he's just ignorant about it - even though that clearly doesn't prevent him from inventing his own facts and keep ranting about it.
    10
  3. Actually ... no it's not. John Stossel claimed there were 4 parts to it: 1) Climate is changing... Actually he put up a Red Herring, but the evidence is overwhelming that it is and that it's not just business as usual. 2) Is it humans: Yes - the evidence is overwhelming. And no - it was not "warming" long before humans. That's a completely meaningless statement. 3) Is it a crisis ... Regardless of all the other problems and the conflicts they will spur, I'd say it's pretty indisputable that meters of sea level rise will be a real crisis for our civilization. 4) Can we do anything about it?: ... We can probably not reverse much, but The evidence is (again) overwhelming that if we don't stop making it worse it will get worse... much worse.
    9
  4. Regardless of whether Dawkins is arrogant... his statement is factually correct. I'll happily provide evidence... For which specific claim do you lack evidence?
    4
  5. "Stossel's explanation of the climate change outrage is PERFECT." I beg to differ. "Yes, the climate is changing as it always has been" Which is just a meaningless Red Herring which doesn't address the issue at hand *at all*. "Even according to the generous estimates of the proponents themselves (who were completely wrong in their predictions a few decades ago btw) if we followed the Paris Climate Accord it would reduce the temperature by a completely nominal amount over a century." That's just a lie. "That is, assuming their predictions are remotely accurate that far into the future when they have not been accurate even in the immediate future," And that's just simply wrong. You are parroting a talking-point which hasn't had the slightest claim to validity for at least 3 years. The modeling has actually been spot on: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/910535115100606465
    1
  6. ad2) Yeah... and so? We know why the last ice age ended. Orbital changes. This is NOT why it's warming now. If anything that should tell you that YES - sea level will rise if we heat the planet. ad3) Tundra doesn't just become farmland over night... it takes centuries. Forget the "retreating" part. ad4) You are simply wrong. ... and manipulating numbers. Climate change doesn't stop at the year you decide to measure the effect of emission cuts. Claiming that we need to proceed making it worse because that's the only way to get to fusion power is just nonsense.
    1
  7. Anyone on Stossels "side" who still think they have an argument, should listen to Jerry Taylor: https://shift.newco.co/addressing-climate-change-should-be-a-pillar-of-republican-policy-6578fb831554 Watch the talk...
    1
  8. Stu B "Global warming = Bible = Cult = Transgender" Fantastic ... I rest my case.
    1
  9. Shafeek Khan Yeah... I hope so too ... but it would be foolish to put all our money on that solution.
    1
  10. "... but 0.8 to 2.0 meters increase in sea level by 2100 doesn't sound too catastrophic to me. Well... it does to me. But you have to be aware that that number doesn't include dynamic effects like collapse of the West-Antarctic Ice Sheet - which would add another 3 meters. Last time the temperature levels was as high as we are currently approaching (in the Eemian), sea levels were 6-9 meters higher.
    1
  11. "another problem for the policy proposals by the climate change alarmists is that even if you manage to implement policy X for your country Y, you still have all the other countries who are not going to follow policy X, " ... hence: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ And border adjustment taxes.
    1
  12. +George "Not an argument. Even the U.N. program states that they would only cut temperatures by a fraction of a degree over a hundred year period' Well.. now we're evaluating whether anything is an argument. That's not an argument unless you provide a reference to what you are talking about. I will seriously question your claims validity. "Renewable energy will innovate through the free market, just like fossil fuels did." But a market with huge negative externalities is NOT a free market. "Fossil fuels are the clean energy alternative to animal dung and wood" That's a nonsense claims which just doesn't address the question at hand. Yes, animal dung pollutes. But it doesn't add new carbon to the carbon cycle. So you are really aguing against apples with oranges here. "Temperatures should be rising and its not necessarily a bad thing. Humans grieve during warming periods and struggle during cooking periods. Another nonsense claim which doesn't address the problem at hand. That was true within a narrow band of temperature variations +/- 1 degree C and while humanity didn't have the civilization we have today which heavily depends on stable climate and sea levels. But what we are creating if we just do business as usual is something like recreating the conditions of the Cretaceous - if not down right the Perm/Trias mass extinction where CO2 levels rose to kill off ~85% of the life on the planet.
    1
  13. Robert Duncan: Yeah... and so do I.
    1
  14. +Tenebrousable "Even in the earlier century, the warming was happening from the start. While emissions were just few percentile of current." If you think there's zero inertia in the climate system and temperature has to follow CO2 without any lack and without any influence from other factors - you have seriously misunderstood atmospheric physics.
    1
  15. Lil Dragon First of all ... Nobody said "a decade" (That's 2027). Numbers mentioned for "ceasing all use of fossil fuels" have traditionally been 2050. Secondly ... 0.8-2.0 meters STILL doesn't include dynamic effects and if you do not stop increasing the CO2 levels the ice caps WILL melt .. it's only a matter of speed. If not before 2100, then after. You are committing at least 3 errors in your argument: 1) Inventing a strawman: Nobody said 2027 2) Ignoring the real meaning of numbers. The 0.8-2.0 meters are only for ordinary melt water runoff and sea water expansion. 3) Thinking the problem ends at 2100 and we only have to relate to what happens by that year.
    1
  16. +RonPaul Revered I don't think John is wrong about what impact legislation will have on global warming vs. what impact production, savings, and investment will have. " He's pulling it out of his ass though ... No research (economic or natural science) to back it up.
    1
  17. +Garbriel Sáenz "Dude, Richard Dawkins uses that argument to dismiss people he doesn't like based on their religious beliefs." No. He uses the statement to point out the absurdity of science deniers. "Richard Dawkins, regardless of his actual knowledge or accomplishments in a certain scientific field is a highly certified SJW." Now ... THAT'S an example of dismissing people you don't like without engaging in what they say. First of all... even if he was a SJW, what relevance does that have for a scientific question? Secondly ... calling Dawkins a SJW is simply absurd... Have you been paying attention *AT ALL*?
    1
  18. +Tenebrousabe "And as far as I see, the incline has remained either steady or even slower in recent years after that." No. That's simply wrong. http://berkeleyearth.org/global-warming-2016/ "And considering the increased volume of emissions after the start of the earlier century?" Yeah? And? ... What CO2 does is to shift the energy balance. Earth is now receiving 0.6W/m2 more ingoing than outgoing. Temperature doesn't catch up the year you do the emissions.
    1
  19. Well ... Picking out a single researcher in a field to argue the exact opposite of the general consensus can be done in every field - also natural sciences. You can find biologist claiming evolution is wrong (*) and doctors claiming AIDS isn't caused by HIV. *: Btw.. had to google Bob Murphy ... he claims he can prove evolution wrong? ... Interesting.
    1
  20. +RonPaul Revered "There is a general consensus about what will stop global warming?" Amongst natural scientists yes: Stop raising the CO2 level. "Let me guess, taxes, regulations, and subsidies?" No - that was not the topic. The topic was whether it would be more expensive to mitigate than to adapt. Economists are very aware that the cost of not mitigating down the line will be enormous. Stay on topic
    1
  21. +Tenebrousable "Windmills for example have massive subsidies here" So do fossil fuels. IMF have calculated the effective subsidy by having fossil fuels not paying the true cost and having huge negative externalities. If you let the next generation pay for the damage done - then that's a subsidy. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf I cannot for the life of my understand why it's not a violation of the non-aggression principle to impose negative externalities on others. Libertarians should be up in arms about the subsidies this violation constitutes.
    1
  22. "Look, denying evolution is stupid, but to say, "therefore this person is stupid"" ... and he didn't actually say that. If you notice, he stated as a matter of fact that the only reasons not to believe in the fact of evolution is either not knowing enough about it, being actually stupid, being insane - or wicked. If you can think of any other explanation - please let me know. "No, I'm not dismissing him. I said he was a good scientist. That's his area of expertise. When it comes to political or social commentary, however, he becomes an SJW." Absurd... just absurd. Name only single SJW-defining topic Dawkins supports?
    1
  23. "It begs the question; How do you stop raising the Co2 level? " Yes... What do you suggest - I'm all ears.
    1
  24. "There is a big difference between speculators and economists. You are consuming predictions from the former." ???
    1
  25. + Jaroslav Záruba Actually .. you unwittingly proved my point. Here's the real story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
    1