Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "American Capitalist Party & Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Mark Pellegrino | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Argh... I'm a classical liberal. I fully agree that classical liberalism should be based on reason, but I'm sooooo... frustrated by the number of Climate Science deniers speaking for classical liberalism. Also here. Mark Pellegrino seems to be another example. Michael Shermer was the exception.... But then... he also works professionally with debunking science denial.
    26
  2. What? ..Ted Cruz? ... Where?
    10
  3. FrostyJack "Lucifer should be a rationalist icon if anything." ... yeah ... well ... except... He also didn't really exist :) Not more than "Venus", anyway.
    1
  4. uyaratful geo-libertarians. - at least the Danish geo-libertarian party doesn't deny the problem and takes it very serious.
    1
  5. Well.. yeah... probably... I haven't actually seen Gores movie. But people claiming to be for science and reason, as Mark here, or Yaron Brook the other week, should be above those knee-jerk reactions to what a politician says and listen to the scientists.
    1
  6. Ryan P But the first step to solving a problem is not to deny its existence. "There are still trade offs to be considered. How large is the risk?" Risk management is not only about likelihood. It's also about severity. Worst case might only have a few percent likelihood - but given that Worst case is something like the Perm/Trias event, prober risk management would guard against that happening.  "How should we allocate resources to the reduction of CO2 emissions vs. geo-engineering that mitigates its effects? There is no single scientific answer to the problem" But there not being a "single" scientific answer, doesn't mean that we know nothing about it. We actually do know that we have no known method of Geo-ingeneering which will mitigate the effects without serious side effects. So ... just leaning back and saying that we don't know enough to act is dishonest.
    1
  7. ***** "however, working on consensus as truth and speaking in doomsday prophecies with little to no precision is something so-called "scientists" should avoid. Perhaps that is why they are not very solution-orientated; fear-mongering is a great way to rake up government dollars." That's simply nonsense. First of all ... Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it a "doomsday prophecy". The scientist have time and time again been shown to actually have been conservative in their warnings. (If you follow the science and not the denier blogosphere). Secondly ... many of the scientists are actually very solution oriented. James Hansen who originally pointed out the severity of the problem to congress has spend much of the last decade advocating a simple market-oriented solution.
    1
  8. ***** ""Reduce greenhouse emissions" - James Hansen. Thank you, Cpt. Obvious!" I hope you don't go around bragging about the level of research you put into that. Try again. "All kidding aside, he is right on the subsidies of oil and coal being rather counterproductive, something I think he should really emphasize more." ... which again shows that you haven't actually done anything to find out what he ACTUALLY proposes and what he puts emphasize on. Try again. ... start with his TED talk and watch it to the end - at least. "Nuclear looks rather solid, aside from the catastrophe of a meltdown. Yet, I rarely hear about it as a serious alternative." You mean, - like in this letter James Hansen and a few other climate scientists wrote to policy makers: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/ Again... you didn't really put much research into this response, did you?
    1
  9. ***** "What exactly are you rebuking?" Your claim that James Hansens solution was just "reduce emissions". ... it should actually be pretty obvious that that was what I was responding to. Also ... you now wanting to talk about "climate change lobby" and not about what the actual scientists say seems like an attempt to move the goal posts. I don't care what Greenpeace (or similar) says. I care about the science. And I care about simple physical calculations which makes it perfectly clear that we cannot afford to rule out nuclear: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables
    1
  10. UnknownXV First of all ... anyone who tries to make it look like we are talking about people denying that climate has changed in the earth's past is deliberately obfuscating the issue - and you know it. We are talking about the current findings of climate science wrt. what is happening the last 150 years. Saying stuff like "I don't deny that the climate exists" or "I don't deny climate always have been changing" is a clear sign people are not willing to actually engage the issue honesty. Secondly... You only have to read some of his twitter comments or the capitalist party politics page to see that he is directly contradicting established climate science. Trying to make it look like we don't know whether humans have contributed, or that the warming is insignificant is also denying the science.
    1
  11. UnknownXV "You are using language that is deliberately misleading in order to smear someone." BS... everyone have had years to figure out what this is about. You're just making pathetic excuses. "But there is a hell of a lot of climate science that is still in the hypothesis stage," The same could be said about the theory of evolution. And it would still be accurate to characterize those who deny its overall conclusion as science deniers. "yet is touted and presented as if it is a full-fledged scientific theory. This is false." No.... So now we agree that there's something established science says which you deny. "Even the most well-established scientific principle must be tested vigorously forever." But Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and just as the creationists would have to present something like pre-cambrian rabbits, you would have to present something truely extraordinary to overthrow a well established theory. You are simply on the same page a creationists. Just wrt. to a different scientific theory and your ideological motivation is another, but your position and the structure of your arguments is exactly the same.  
    1
  12. UnknownXV "I am not making excuses, I'm not even referring to the science in this context, only the wording of your sentence." BS... show me one quote where someone has used the term "climate change denier" and where the meaning was to accuse someone of denying that climate had changed before in geological time. "There isn't much in the theory of evolution that sheds doubt on the integrity of it as a whole" Would it surprise you if I could fine a creationist who didn't agree with you about that? And I could most likely also find a creationist who were all up in arms about "missing links", but would distance himself from your science denial by claiming that the theory of anthropogenic global warming differed from evolution in that there were really not much in climate science which shed doubt of the integrity. If you want me to take you serious, - present an argument which is qualitatively different from what a creationists would say wrt. evolution. I'm not using strawmen. I honestly see NO difference in nature between what creationists are doing to the theory of evolution and what you are doing to climate science. And... just since you keep repeating a lie. Though the theory is not based on the results of the models and the models are only a tool in the understanding, they are IN FACT not running hot. They didn't predict the temporary stagnation in the growth of atmospheric surface temperatures in the last decade, but now that the "pause" which newer was a "pause" is over they are in fact right on target: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/10/2015-global-temperatures-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions And that's even when not counting 2016 which has blown all temperature record until now: http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/3_14_16_Andrea_CC_2016FebTempAnomalies_Updated_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg And btw... I'm 100% with Center for Inquiry. Here: http://www.csicop.org/news/press_releases/show/deniers_not_skeptics You are in no way more a "skeptic" than a creationist is. What you are practicing is science denial.
    1